Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' AND ORPHANS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to the Advocates' Widows' and Orphans' Fund (to be proceeded with under section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. William Ross (under section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next; and to be printed. [Bill 19.]

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION

Combat Aircraft

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has for initiating a new British combat aircraft.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Technology what discussions he has held with German Ministers on a replacement for the F104.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the present position of negotiations for the development of an advanced combat aircraft in co-operation with certain other European members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): As a result of further discussions with the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands on the possibility of collaborating in the development of a multi-role comlaat aircraft, a feasibility study is now being carried out by industry.

Mr. Hastings: Can the Minister assure the House that there is now a definitive aircraft, or are we still discussing which of several different concepts to adopt? Can he also assure us that there will be no question on this occasion, given our experience in this field, of giving design leadership to another country?

Mr. Mallalieu: The project is not at the definitive stage yet. We are still trying to match requirements. I very much hope that the design leadership will rest in British hands.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister giving a holding contract to B.A.C. Wharton to continue with its independent work, pending an agreement with the Germans? How long can this situation be allowed to continue?

Mr. Mallalieu: I hope not for very much longer.

Mr. Corfield: Returning to the question of design leadership, will the Minister impress on the Foreign Ministers concerned that as we are the only country with an aircraft industry capable of design leadership it is in their interests as well as ours that our design leadership should be accepted?

Mr. Mallalieu: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that has been done.

Airbus

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on progress with the A300 Airbus.

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement about the A300 airbus.

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will now make a statement about the European airbus project.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made in the development of the 300 Airbus.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Reports have just been received from the airframe and engine contractors on the further study work carried out at the request of Ministers since July. Revised cost estimates have also recently been


submitted. Negotiations with airlines are also in hand. Ministers from the three countries will meet again as soon as the new reports have been fully evaluated and airlines have expressed their views.

Mr. Hastings: Is it true, nevertheless, that the French are beginning to have second thoughts about a 240-seater, as opposed to a 300-seater? Does not he think that if that is true it is too late and unreasonable at this stage, after all the work on research that has been carried out, that we should think about changing from a 300-seater if we want to meet the time scale required?

Mr. Benn: There is an awful lot of talk going on all the time in the aircraft business. The one thing that emerged very clearly from the meeting we had in Paris in August was that we were agreed that the concept of the A300 was absolutely right. We are doing the extra work to see if we can produce it in such a way as to meet the demand at a price t hat airlines are prepared to pay.

Mr. Fortescue: In view of the very differing financial policies now being followed by the three sponsoring Governments and the noticeable lack of enthusiasm for the A300, by two of the nationalised airlines involved, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that his mind is not closed to giving Government backing to the BAC311 project, which is now very much in existence, as he knows.

Mr. Benn: As I have just said, everybody is always thinking about all sorts of alternatives all the time. If we are serious about international collaboration, a project of this kind, on which a great deal of work has been done and which meets a pretty clear need, should be pressed forward, and we shall have a Ministerial meeting shortly to have a look at the latest figures provided.

Mr. Onslow: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the current estimate of airframe R and D is about £180 million? Will he say categorically that the aircraft, if it flies, will have British engines, and that he sticks to the assurance of the former Minister of State that it will be built?

Mr. Benn: My right hon. Friend the former Minister of State, in talking about this matter, always said that he should

have to look at it stage by stage, but he expressed confidence that the airbus would go ahead, which is a very different thing. The final figures have not yet come to me. That is why we gave extra time to the companies. But we shall evaluate them soon. The RB207 is available for this aircraft.

Mr. Rankin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that accidents with aircraft of this capacity would not be tolerable, and since accidents often arise from incidents in flight, will he now make the notification of all incidents by present captains compulsory, so that we may find out what guide technology can give us in preventing possible trouble with these aircraft in the future?

Mr. Benn: I agree with my hon. Friend that accidents with bigger aircraft, just like accidents with bigger tankers, pose much more serious problems for the community. He may be assured that as we move on to these more sophisticated aircraft the degree of testing work done and the safety standards to be met are infinitely greater than we have accepted for earlier aircraft.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is a requirement for this size of aircraft not only in Europe but in other parts of the world, particularly North America and the continent of Australia, and that if we do not build it one of the American manufacturers will fill the gap?

Mr. Benn: I confirm that immediately. The aircraft will be wanted not only in Europe but elsewhere. Indeed, although we are concerned probably with the initial market before the final go ahead is given, we do not intend to be satisfied with anything but a share in the world market.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology if he is aware that the French Dassault Company is proposing to build a 200–250-seater airliner; and what consideration is being given to this proposal in the negotiations with the French and German Government on the A300 airbus.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: No, Sir. The large civil aircraft project by Dassault of which I am aware is the 130–140-seater Mercure.

Mr. Howarth: I apologise for over-stating the estimated size of this aircraft. Does not my hon. Friend agree that such a project—which appears to be a replacement for the Caravelle—represents some threat to the proposals for building an airbus?

Mr. Mallalieu: I would not have thought so. It might be a competitor for the 311. if that were developed, but I would not have thought that it would compete with the airbus.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the latent estimated launching costs of the A300 airbus; what proportion of this will be borne by Great Britain; and to what extent the share of work will reflect this contribution.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The sum required by the constructors to launch the project is still under negotiation but their combined airframe and engine estimate is close to the figure of £285 million given to the House on 24th June, 1968. The United Kingdom share is expected to be rather less than one half of the total costs. Oar work share will be broadly commensurate.—[Vol. 767, c. 1–4.]

Mr. Howarth: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the British aerospace companies will receive a reasonable share of this work? I am thinking in particular of the avionics side. Will these companies be able to compete fairly with their French opposite numbers, and receive value for money if the process goes ahead?

Mr. Mallalieu: Our total share will certainly be a fair one. On the question of the avionics side of the work, I very much hope that that situation will apply, too.

Mr. Onslow: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear to our partners in this project that if the aircraft is not fittted with British engines Britain will have a right to expect a greater share of the airframe work?

Mr. Mallalieu: In these negotiations we shall look after our own interests as best we can.

Short Brothers and Harland

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what progress

he has made with the financial reorganisation of Short Brothers and Harland; and if he will make a statement.

(2) what offer he has received from the Rohr Corporation in the United States of America for the purchase of the equity of Short Brothers and Harland; and what stage the negotiations have reached.

Mr. Benn: My officials met the Rohr Corporation for further exploratory talks on 18th October. I do not yet know when they will be ready to enter into firm negotiations. No firm proposal has yet been received from them. Meanwhile the Government have decided to defer action on the financial proposals put forward by the company's Board.

Mr. McMaster: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great strain placed upon the board and management by the delay in the financial reconstruction? Is he also aware of the concern felt by the employees of Short Brothers and Harland, particularly as to the future of the design unit? Will he expedite a decision on these matters?

Mr. Benn: I am very well aware of those things. Although negotiations of this kind may well take some time, I should not want to see them delayed or prolonged longer than was necessary.

Military Aircraft (Development Projects)

Mr. Onslow: asked the Minister of Technology what military aircraft development projects are currently being sponsored by his Department.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Buccaneer S Mark 2, Harrier, Nimrod, Jaguar (in collaboration with France) and the Speyengined Phantom. In addition the possibility of developing a multi-rôle combat aircraft in collaboration with the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and the Netherlands is being examined. In the helicopter field we are developing the Sea King, the SA340 and the WG13, the last two in collaboration with France.

Mr. Onslow: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that of that list the M.R.C.A. is the most important for the long-term future of the industry? Will he give an assurance that if it proves impossible


to draw up some multi-national collaboration on this we are prepared to consider going on with it alone?

Mr. Mallalieu: We shall certainly have to consider the possibilities if we cannot get international collaboration, but I hope we can.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Would the hon. Gentleman remember that when we have an international collaborative aircraft the engine is almost inevitably provided by Rolls-Royce, and this means that the rest of the aircraft—the avionics and the airframe—has to be provided by overseas designers and suppliers, and that this is not a basis on which to maintain a healthy aircraft industry in this country?

Mr. Mallalieu: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are watching that all the time. We hope that we can get rather more avionics than we have been doing.

Sonic Boom (Survey)

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Minister of Technology what tests he is carrying out to determine the effect of sonic boom on ancient buildings.

Mr. Bean: My Department, as I informed the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 19th November, has been conducting an investigation into the effects of sonic bangs on cathedrals. It is planned to extend this survey to include other buildings.—[Vol. 773, c. 266.]

Mr. Galbraith: Does the existence of this decision mean that the Government seriously intend to allow aircraft to fly at supersonic speeds across Britain? If so, has the right hon. Gentleman any idea how many flights will take place daily and how many people will be affected? If it is right to test buildings to see how they stand up to strain, what about testing people? What about having a test to see how right hon. and hon. Members stand up to it? Even better, what about a test to see how the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues stand up to it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary Questions make sonic booms.

Mr. Benn: Whether we make supersonic airliners or not, someone will do so and some British Government will have to decide whether to allow them to fly over land. To help with that difficult

decision some tests are necessary involving buildings, and of course they must be public tests. This is why I held some early tests last year of a preliminary character.

Mr. Onslow: Will not the tests be more useful when we know what sort of boom the Concorde will make?

Mr. Benn: The Church authorities have shown great enthusiasm for the tests because the tests are telling them something about the safety of the cathedrals with or without supersonic aircraft.

Vertical Take-Off Aircraft

Mr. Fortescue: asked the Minister of Technology what action he is taking to encourage the development of a vertical take-off and landing or short takeoff and landing airliner; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement outlining his Department's proposals for the further development of techniques of vertical/short take-off and landing in the field of civil aviation.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Technology what progress is being made with the short take-off and landing aircraft.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The study which my predecessor referred to in answer to the question of 18th March last [Vol. 761, c. 3.] by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) is still continuing.

Mr. Fortescue: I must thank the hon. Gentleman for that very informative Answer. Is he aware that the French, with the Breguet 941, and the Americans are well ahead of us on vertical takeoff techniques, although they were pioneered in this country many years ago? Is he further aware that, since vertical take-off aircraft could control the whole policy of this overcrowded island on new airports, the development of such an aeroplane in this country is of the utmost urgency?

Mr. Mallalieu: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, it is for that reason that the study is very wide-ranging and detailed. I would not accept for a


moment the first part of his Question, that the. French are ahead of us in this technique now.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman regard this as a matter of real urgency? Quite apart from the other considerations mentioned by my hon. Friend, it is clear that the possible ramifications of this type of development on the design and operation of airports can be considerable and could be relevant to the present inquiry.

Mr. Mallalien: Yes, I accept that e ntirely.

Mr. Rankin: Could the short takeoff and landing technique be applied to the airbus, or is my hon. Friend satisfied that existing runways are sufficiently long to handle it?

Mr. Mallalieu: I do not think that it could be applied to the airbus. That is not in the design. But, on my hon. Friend's second point, I am satisfied that existing runways are adequate.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my hon. Friend aware of the very interesting project that Westlands have in hand for vertical take-off and landing civil airliners? Is there a prospect of giving additional support to this work? Would he comment on the urging from the benches opposite for further money to be spent, in view of their Leader's charge on Monday that the Government are spending too much?

Mr. Mallalieu: I will leave that last point to the Leader of the Opposition. I am aware of the work being done by Westlands, and my Department is participating with Westlands and H.S.A. in a design study. We hope to have a drift specification by the end of the year.

Concorde Project

Mr. Ellis: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde project.

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress of the Concorde project.

Mr. Benn: Manufacture of the two prototype aircraft is now complete, and first flight is expected early in the new

year. Manufacture of the two preproduction aircraft and of the static test specimen is well advanced, and work has started on the fatigue test specimen and on the first three production aircraft.

Mr. Ellis: Has my right hon. Friend seen in the Press speculation about cuts from the French side due to their financial difficulties? Could he say what effect this will have on the programme and also what representations he has had from the French Government? Does he also, as many Members do, deplore the kind of speculation that this project is in danger, when we all know that it is not true?

Mr. Benn: It is true that one difficulty that faces me is the speculation, which tends to be extreme in character. We have had some examples this morning as a result of the statement made yesterday in France about their economy measures. We were not consulted, nor would I expect to be consulted, about them. To the best of my knowledge, it does not affect the progress of the project during 1969, and I have no reason to believe that it will have any bearing on the future of Concorde.

Mr. Wall: Will the Minister confirm that there will be no comparable financial cuts on the British side, and can he also state categorically that it is the intention of both Governments to carry the project through to its conclusion?

Mr. Benn: Through to its conclusion means that flight testing will take place, as planned, next year. But Concorde will decide its own future. Let us be quite clear. If it succeeds and people buy it, it will be a success. If it does not succeed and people do not buy it, it will be a failure. If people could realise this and not think that it was the machinations of the Governments concerned that was the cause of the trouble, some of the speculation would not occur.

Mr. Dalyell: Is it not extraordinary when my right hon. Friend says that he does not expect to be consulted?

Mr. Benn: I certainly would not have consulted the French Government about measures taken as part of our own economy discussions at different stages involving central economic policy in either country. Of course not. If there


were to be a change by either Government that affected the progress of the project, that would be different. But I understand that this is rephasing of payments by the French Government, and I would not expect to be consulted about it.

Mr. Michael Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that, whilst we welcome the Concorde project and wish it well, Salisbury for seven hundred years has strained every muscle to keep the spire up and it is not anxious now to see sonic booms knock it down?

Mr. Benn: I do not want to knock down old cathedrals, in case anyone believes that I do. This is why we have had these recent tests, which have been welcomed by the Deans and Chapters who found that Concorde gave them the opportunity to see whether they are safe anyway.

Mr. Brooks: Will the Minister make a distinction between measures which the French Government properly took to defend their own economy and measures which are bound to have a bearing on our economy and upon which there is a mutual sharing arrangement between France and Britain? In these circumstances, is he entirely satisfied that this is purely rephasing of the expenditure for 1969?

Mr. Bean: My Department is in close touch with our opposite numbers in France, as we expect, about a project of this kind. The project has been affected by decisions taken unilaterally, including our own decision to devalue last year, which affected the calculations of the cost share on each side. I am satisfied that the measures announced yesterday will not affect the progress of the project next year. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Marten: Can the Minister, nevertheless, give a categorical assurance that there will not be any similar cuts by Britain?

Mr. Benn: I will be perfectly candid. I have always looked at this programme from the point of view that I am responsible, first, to see that it should succeed and, secondly, to see whether there were economies to be made at any point, be-

cause I am also responsible for public money. If it were possible, as a result of the programme, to make an economy, perhaps by improved management, I should think it right to do so. I would not be doing my job if I did not have regard to the money that I am spending at a very high rate on Concorde.

Mr. Palmer: Will my right hon. Friend, who is a Bristol Member, give an assurance to his fellow Bristol Members that no financial difficulties will be allowed to stand in the way of the completion of Concorde?

Mr. Benn: No, I will not give that assurance. I never have given the assurance that no financial difficulties will stand in the way. If, as a result of major redesign difficulties, we found that the cost of Concorde had risen to the point where it had no prospect of being a commercial success, both Governments would look at it. I have never given unqualified assurances about Concorde. I have done this, I think, quite rightly, although I am a Bristol Member. I live with Concorde during the week and at weekends. I do not think that anybody else in the House does.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Computers (Information Storage and Retrieval)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken in his support for the British computer industry to co-ordinate the work of librarians and those concerned with the collection, dissemination, storage and retrieval of scientific and technological information with those who design and construct computers.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): The Department is in touch with the computer manufacturers and, in close co-operation with O.S.T.I., with many other interests inside and outside Government, who are concerned with information storage and retrieval.

Mr. Osborn: Cannot Great Britain take a lead in this new data storage revolution ranging from the House of Commons experiment to the computerisation of the Statute Book, and is it not the case that


the computers for this purpose need not necessarily be number crushers but may to disc storage machines? Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that initiative is taken to bring together the brains that are working on these things? As he is responsible in this respect, will he take the initiative?

Dr. Bray: Yes, Sir. We are in fairly constant discussion with potential users and also publishing firms as well as computer firms, which are having very active discussions with each other and ourselves.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this matter is very closely related to the general pressure that is building up for an effective national scientific reference library in which the British computer industry has a very large part to play? Are we any nearer now towards resolving the dichotomy between the Department of Education and Science on the one hand and the hon. Gentleman's Department on the other?

Dr. Bray: Both Departments have an interest in this field. Obviously, in working together we have to keep in close touch with each other. We are well aware of the work of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in this matter, and are in touch with hon. Members about it

Motor Car Industry (Sales)

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the effect on motor car sales, respectively in export and home markets, of the hire-purchase restrictions announced on 1st November, 1968.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler): The estimated effect of this measure is that home market demand in the next twelve months will be reduced by about 5 per cent. below the level which would otherwise have been achieved. The measure does not affect exports directly, but indirectly I believe exports will benefit from this reduced home demand on manufacturers.

Sir G. Nabarro: As the Question was tabled before the Chancellor's package last Friday, has the Parliamentary Secretary taken into account that the 5 per

cent. diminution of home sales arising from severer hire purchase restrictions is now made worse by the increase in Purchase Tax, and what evidence is there that by making motor cars dearer on the home market we shall sell more motor cars in overseas markets? Stop whispering; let the hon. Gentleman answer the question!

Mr. Fowler: Despite the measures of last Friday, which I would expect to reduce home demand by up to a further 3 per cent. next year, my expectation is still that home demand next year will be at least at the level of home demand this year.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the statement supposed to have been made by some of the executives of Vauxhall Motors Limited that the Purchase Tax changes caused the abolition of the night shift at the Luton factory?

Mr. Fowler: I am not in a position to answer for the executives of Vauxhall Motors Limited, but it seems to me highly unlikely that this could be the explanation for the abolition of night shift working at this stage.

Mr. David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government are taking to consider alternative economic regulators on the demand side of the supply and demand equation that do not hit the motor industry, which is a mass production industry, and also investment in it quite as severely as do the economic regulators in respect of hire purchase, Purchase Tax and the like?

Mr. Fowler: We are always willing to consider any alternative scheme that may be suggested, but, in essence, this is a matter for the Chancellor, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should address his question to him.

European Launcher Development Organisation

Mr. Marten: asked the Minister or Technology if he will make a statement on British participation in the European Launcher Development Organisation.

Mr. Benn: As I told the House on 23rd April, the Government have decided not to undertake additional financial commitments to E.L.D.O. At the European


Space Conference in Bonn on 12th-14th November, I indicated that if the United Kingdom were released from its present financial commitments to E.L.D.O., this would enable us to participate in applications satellites, and other developments.—[Vol. 763, c. 40–7.]

Mr. Marten: As France and Germany seem likely to go on to build a European launcher, will Blue Streak nevertheless be available to them? Also, what does the new policy mean as regards a possible increase in the cost of our space effort, and does the Minister propose to authorise a U.K. 4 satellite?

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir; Blue Streak will be available. Yes, if the switch is possible, it would mean an increase in our commitment to European space expenditure. On the applications side, which we think will be profitable, the opportunity provided by the Bonn conference of explaining our desire to go out for these space projects which will be profitable was very valuable. I should like further notice before answering the last part of the question.

Mr. Dalyell: What does this mean in terms of our relations with E.S.R.O.?

Mr. Benn: At the conference—I shall be reporting about this on another Question—we came forward with another increase for E.S.R.O. over a period of three years at 6 per cent. a year in the perspective of a further period at the same amount. We believe that the role of E.S.R.O. in respect of applications work will develop, and we look forward to a new uniform European space organisation.

Mr. David Price: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is far too big a subject for exchanges by way of Parliamentary Question. Will he present to us a full White Paper or Blue Book giving the Government's proposals, giving the alternatives and, above all, giving all the comparative figures in relation especially to his argument, with which I have a lot of sympathy, for our concentrating on telecommunications satellites and not going for launchers? Will he recognise that in the absence of official figures it is difficult for hon. Members on either side of the House to take an intelligent view?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions should be brief.

Mr. Benn: I should greatly like a debate and agree that the value of one would be much improved if we had figures available. I will consult the hon. Gentleman about the kind of figures that he would like. I cannot undertake to bind them in a Blue Book, but I will give an undertaking to make them available in the Library.

Mr. Moorman: asked the Minister of Technology what action he proposes to take following recent representations made by six Western European countries to Great Britain to reconsider her decision to leave the European Launcher Development Organisation in 1971; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Government decision on the European Launcher Development Organisation announced in the House on 23rd April, 1968, was based on economic consideration. No new factors have been revealed in recent discussions which would justify a reconsideration of that decision.—[Vol. 763, c. 40–7.]

Mr. Moonman: Bearing in mind the increasing number of European projects in science and technology, does not my hon. Friend agree that the time is ripe for a White Paper setting out clearly where our scientific and technological collaboration with Europe begins and ends?

Mr. Mallalieu: My hon. Friend will have heard the answer given by my right hon. Friend a few moments ago on that issue.

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the Minister realise that it is calculated that on long-range communications no less than £8,000 million will be spent in Western Europe during the next 10 years, and that the E.L.D.O. project could make a useful contribution to the space communication satellite, and that it is desperately important that Britain should retain an interest and capability in this sphere?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am well aware of the enormous possibilities of work in space. Where a dispute would arise is on the part that the European launcher would play in this. It could be a serious handicap because of its enormous expense.

Nuclear Reactor Industry

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Technology when he proposes to introduce legislation for the reorganisation of the nuclear reactor industry.

Mr. David Price: asked the Minister of Technology when he will be introducing legislation to establish a new publicly-owned company to take over the Atomic Energy Authority's responsibilities for nuclear fuel.

Mr. Benn: I cannot anticipate when legislation will be introduced, but, as the hon. Members are aware, some aspects of the reorganisation which do not require legislation are already going ahead.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is disappointment among members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, who worked hard on this question, at the great delay in reorganising the nuclear reactor industry? Does not he recall that he himself told the Committee well over 12 months ago that the need for the reorganisation was urgent and that it should be carried through as quickly as possible?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that, but we have one design construction company going. The negotiations on the second one have fallen through. The work, involving the Atomic Energy Authority and including legislation, has proved a very big job indeed. I assure my hon. Friend that we have not been slow in tack ling this very complex problem, on which we most certainly received help from his Committee.

Mr. Price: I understand many of the right hon. Gentleman's problems, but why cannot progress be made with getting ahead with the publicly-owned nuclear fuel company? Does not he agree that continued delay is bad for the morale of the staff both of the A.E.A. and of the private nuclear engineering firms involved?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that point, but if we are to have proper legislation it means dealing with the Authority's future, with the Atomic Energy Board and with a number of other things, and all this cannot be rushed. In the industry itself there is now a greater degree

of certainty about the future than there was before we were able to announce our dicsion.

Mr. Gregory: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the difficulties we are experiencing in the regrouping and reorganisation of the boiler-making side of the industry, and also in the civil engineering, we should try to speed up the process in order to give a chance to this very important industry? The more delay there is the more difficult the problems become.

Mr. Benn: The delay on that side is not being caused by me but by the difficulty in getting the industrial mergers set up. I asked the I.R.C. to undertake this some time ago and I am not directly engaged in the negotiations.

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress being made with the reorganisation of the nuclear reactor industry.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Technology what progress has been made with the further reorganisation of the nuclear engineering industry; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: The formation of the first of the two design and construction companies envisaged in my statement of 17th July was announced on 16th September. Negotiations for the formation of the second company are continuing, after the setback which recently became public.—[Vol. 768, c. 1428–38.]

Mr. Lubbock: A few minutes ago the Minister said that he was not directly involved in the negotiations about the formation of a boiler company among three of the existing firms, because he had asked the I.R.C. to do it on his behalf. Has the I.R.C. reported back since the breakdown of negotiations, and what steps are being taken to have them restarted?

Mr. Benn: We left it to the I.R.C., because this is a matter where business skill and flexibility is of the greatest importance. We are in continual contact with the I.R.C., but we do not have formal negotiations or discussions with it. I know that it was disappointed at


the setback and it is continuing its work to find a solution.

Mr. Gregory: Is the Minister aware that the long delay in completing reorganisation is causing great anxiety to workers and management in the nuclear engineering industry in my constituency? The question that must be put is: what will be the future of those firms at present within the nuclear engineering industry which may be left out on the fringe of a second consortium structure?

Mr. Benn: The truth is that if we try to reorganise anything it is bound to affect those concerned in the work which was done before, and uncertainty is inseparable from this process. If my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind which he would like to bring to me I will see what I can do to ease unnecessary uncertainty.

Culham Laboratory Experiments (Superheated Plasma)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the recent successful experiments conducted at the Culham Laboratory of the Atomic Energy Authority in the containment of superheated plasma in a magnetic field.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Recent experiments reported in the Press demonstrated that the ideally-expected slow rate of escape of hot plasma across the confining magnetic field can be achieved under these particular experimental conditions. This is encouraging to the scientists whose work is directed ultimately to the development of a fusion reactor.

Mr. Palmer: Would not my hon. Friend agree that nuclear fusion is still of the greatest importance to the development of nuclear reactor technology in this country?

Mr. Mallalieu: Certainly I agree that it is of immense importance, and a great deal of important work has been done on it.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: In view of the very much longer time scale on which most of the work at Culham operates compared with the rest of the work in the A.E.A., will the hon. Gentleman consider the possibility that the S.R.C. might be

the better auspice under which to put the Culham Laboratory?

Mr. Mallalieu: These things are being considered and I will look at that suggestion.

British Industry (Inventions)

Mr. Allason: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he has taken to publicise to British industry inventions communicated to the National Research and Development Corporation, but which are not taken up as a project by the Corporation.

Dr. Bray: The National Research Development Corporation is responsible for publicising to British industry all inventions communicated to them by Government Departments. They write to firms, circulate data sheets, and publish a booklet "Inventions for Industry" every six months. In view of the large number and variable quality of inventions submitted from outside Government the approach to firms is adapted to each case.

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the information gets through to industry? How is it that so many useful British inventions get adopted in the United Staes and we then have to pay for them on their arrival back here?

Dr. Bray: I would be happy to look at any case which has been put to the N.R.D.C. which has failed to be adopted in this country and which has been adopted in the United States. Of course, the N.R.D.C. seeks licencees in the United States as well.

Fast Breeder Reactors

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement about progress on fast breeder reactors.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: The Atomic Energy Authority's Dounreay Fast Reactor, which commenced operation in 1959, has provided information and operating experience needed to design a prototype reactor for full scale power production. This 250 MW(E) prototype reactor is now being built, and it could be the basis for designs of commercial fast reactors to be introduced by the mid to late 1970s.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that I have some difficulty in comprehending the meaning of that answer? Is


he telling us that there was another gross miscalculation in the White Paper on Fuel and Power?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sorry that my hon. Friend has difficulty in understanding the Answer and that he draws that sort of inference from it. There has been no miscalculation that I know of.

Sir C. Osborne: Will this development put more coal miners out of work? Since tens of thousands of miners are going home with less than £14 a week wages, will the hon. Gentleman see that their interests are safeguarded in this development?

Mr. Mallalieu: This is a development for the mid-1970s. The future of the coal miners will be safeguarded.

Mr. Lubbock: Is any work being done by the A.E.A. on gas-cooled fast reactors? Has the hon. Gentleman had discussions with European countries, such as Sweden, which are interested in this kind of project?

Mr. Mallalieu: I had better have notice of that question. I know that some research is being done but I have not the details.

Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that before the mid-1970s power will be available to Scottish industry from the prototype fast reactor?

Mr. Mallalieu: Yes, certainly.

Research Establishments (Scientific and Engineering Personnel)

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is the estimated number of personnel with scientific or engineering university degrees or degree equivalents etr ployed in research establishments of the Ministry of Technology.

Mr. Benn: Approximately 2,850.

Mr. Biffen: What is the Minister doing substantially to reduce this very large number? Will he initiate a policy of sub-contracting to private industry much of this research so that it may be pursued in a much more commercial atmosphere?

Mr. Benn: We are encouraging more research in industry. On the defence side we have been able to get a reduction. On the civil side, the position is being

held. As our industrial policy develops and bigger corporations come into being, I want to see as much research as possible done in industry for the reason mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dobson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a lot of useful and decisive work is being undertaken in the research establishments of his Ministry, much of it of great use to industry, and that this reduces the prices of the ultimate products?

Mr. Berm: There is no doubt that the value of the research done in Government establishments, not least the A.E.A., has been of enormous importance to the nation. But I think that everyone who has thought about this matter has realised that the transfer problem, of getting the work directed towards commercial ends and the product of that being applied commercially, is easier if one can clear one's links with industry.

Foreign-Based Companies

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to ensure that international companies operating in Great Britain do not exclude, as a consequence of rationalisation, products made at their factories in this country from vital world markets which are then assigned to their foreign-based plants.

Mr. Benn: I am well aware of the problem here. I shall seek assurances where appropriate and watch the situation carefully.

Mr. Newens: Is my right hon. Friend aware of reports that the Ford Motor Company is planning to transfer the export market in North America for cars to Ford of Germany? Would this not have a very detrimental effect on our exports if it were carried out, and will he ensure that the interests of achieving a healthy balance of payments are put before the individual private interests of any such organisation?

Mr. Benn: This really encroaches upon the next Question that my hon. Friend has on the Order Paper, but I am happy to answer them together. The relationship between national interests and the rationalisation policies pursued by international companies is a very interesting one to which a great


deal more thought has to be given. International companies own about 10 per cent. of our industry and do about 20 per cent. of our exports. Ford has had an £850 million net balance in exports in the last few years, and £200 million this year. We have done quite well out of the exports of these big international companies.

Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman resist any narrow and introverted blandishments from the benches behind him and recognise that West Germany is Britain's second largest export market after the United States of America and that we do not want to take action which is likely to diminish that important export trade?

Mr. Benn: Certainly I will note that, and I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that he would never be guilty of a narrow introverted blandishment.

Mr. Moonman: Putting on one side narrow extroverted or introverted blandishments, would my right hon. Friend say how many other companies since 1960 have been asked to honour their assurances? If this information is not available, will he make it available?

Mr. Benn: I will look at that. I was involved in two other cases. One was Chrysler and Rootes, and the other was Philips and Pye. I will see what others there were, if any.

Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the logic of modern technological development is for the emergence of cross-frontier companies, whether American or British in origin? Will he ask his right hon. Friends, when making arrangements for immediate economic difficulties, to bear that fact more in mind than has been done in the case of the special deposits on imports?

Mr. Benn: I am aware of this. But the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, as the international companies develop, national Governments, including our own, will be reduced to the status of parish councils in dealing with the large corporations which will span the world. That is a real problem to which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House will need to give careful attention.

Ford Motor Company

Mr. Newens: asked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied that the Ford Motor Company is continuing to honour the assurances given to Her Majesty's Government in 1960 in connection with the acquisition of the British-owned shareholding by the parent United States organisation in that year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: I have really answered this in replying to my hon. Friend's supplementary to his previous Question. At my request the company have provided information which satisfies me that they are honouring the assurances given in 1960 which are still applicable.

Mr. Newens: Is it not a fact that the increased manufacture of components overseas which could be produced in this country inevitably will add to our import bill?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend raises a very real point. One can either look at individual examples or at the overall effect on the balance of payments. I think that we have to look at both. It is a fact that, as this company and others develop, they will be thinking of Europe in a much freer way than any national company looking simply at its manufacturing capacity in the United Kingdom. That is the nature of the problem which I tried to describe just now.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the statement by a Ford executive yesterday that Ford Motors has lost £25 million in exports this year through industrial unrest? Is he aware that this is a two-way bargain and that, if we want all the benefits, we must get our own house in order?

Mr. Benn: That is why my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has been engaged in these discussions. We are living in an increasingly open world, where investment decisions will be taken according to a variety of factors and where the brain drain will draw away people who wish to be employed elsewhere at higher salaries. That is the nature of the change, and it is a very important one.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the very strong rumours that the


Ford Motor Company is dividing its export programme in the sense that North Atlantic exports, in particular of the Escort, will take place from Genk in Belgium, and that Commonwealth exports of it will take place from Britain? Irrespective of what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, this is a very important question. and I would like my right hon. Friend to indicate whether he has heard the rumours and, if so, what action the Government intend to take about them?

Mr. Benn: I appreciate the importance of what my hon. Friend says. Some time ago, I initiated discussions with the motor companies about developments of this kind. If he would care to get in to touch with me specifically about this point, I should be happy to hear from him.

Hovertrain

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Technology what study he has made of the use of hovertrains to link urban centres such as London to potential off-shore airport sites; and if he will now consider making more money available for hovertrain research and development.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: My right hon. Friend has recently approved additional expenditure of £1½ million by Tracked Hovercraft Limited to produce an experimental manned vehicle on a track several miles long.
The Department and the Ministry of Transport are jointly undertaking studies of the applications of novel systems of high-speed transport, including tracked hovercraft. At present these are necessarily general and not related to particular routes.

Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend at least accept the implication of the possibility of airports being sited on the coast and that Government resources should be devoted to the problems of the design of such airports and the development of fast links to urban centres?

Mr. Mallalieu: Of course, it would be very nice to have all airports sited in the middle of the Atlantic, but there is the problem of reasonable access to where people want ultimately to go. The question cf fast transport to and from airports is being seriously considered.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: As this hover-train experimental track runs through my constituency, is the reason for the shortening of the original track by about 4½ miles, announced a short time ago, due to the Chancellor's recent package?

Mr. Mallalieu: Not that I know of.

Uranium Supplies (Scotland)

Mr. Alex Eadie: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the progress made in prospecting for uranium in Scotland.

Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: As part of the uranium reconnaissance programme carried out in the north of Scotland numerous samples of water and stream sediments have been collected. Much analytical work has still to be done but at least four areas appear to merit more detailed assessment.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that this has created a great deal of interest in the Press in Scotland? Can he tell the House whether any calculations have been made of the economic and financial advantages this would mean to the economy?

Mr. Mallalieu: I am sure that it is arousing interest in in Scotland, as elsewhere. On the economic question, this is trying to prepare an insurance, a fall-back position, in case there is any difficulty in getting supplies from elsewhere.

Mrs. Ewing: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether a comprehensive mineral survey is being carried out in Scotland and, if not, whether he has any plans to do it, because it is known that there are some very fine mineral deposits of many kinds in Scotland?

Mr. Mallalieu: I think that is a different question.

Advanced Passenger Train Project

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Technology what consideration has been given by the National Research Development Council to participate in the development of the advanced passenger train, or the gas turbine power unit to drive it; and what proposals he has for the future.

Dr. Bray: Participation by the National Research Development Corporation in the advanced passenger train project was considered. It was decided that it would be more appropriate for the Ministry of Transport to contribute to the development. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport told the House on 11th November that he had offered assistance to British Rail, and there are other Questions for him to answer today.—[Vol. 773, c. 21–2.]

Mr. Osborn: Why was my Question transferred to the Minister of Transport, bearing in mind that there was a possibility of the N.R.D.C. taking a bigger role and his own Ministry taking a bigger role? Do we understand from this that the active role by the industry for which the Minister is responsible is a smaller one. Is it not regrettable that the Minister has not got a bigger interest in it?

Dr. Bray: No. I think this arrangement is most appropriate. The work on the advanced passenger train project was, after all, done by British Railways, in the first place. It is, therefore, right that the Minister responsible for the finances of British Railways should look after this particular project.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: May we at least have an assurance that the project will go forward under a new project manager and that there will not be a duplication of Ministries?

Dr. Bray: There will be no confusion at all between responsibilities in separate Departments.

Ships (Nuclear Propulsion)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the development of a nuclear reactor for surface ships.

Mr. Fowler: I have nothing to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend, made in reply to a Question by the hon. Member on 14th October.—[Vol. 770, c. 4–5.]

Mr. Wall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Italians are now building a nuclear-powered naval auxiliary ship? Is it not time that this country, the leading maritime nation, should begin to get some experience of this new type of propulsion afloat? Will the Government con-

hider building some sort of naval vessel to give us that experience?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman asked about naval vessels. If he wants an answer on that subject he must address his question to the Secretary of State for Defence. We have two shipbuilders in touch with us about possible mintech support for a study of this and other projects, and we shall need to do some work on it. We are determined to go ahead with a prototype ship only if it can be justified in terms of the expected benefits to British industry, and if they are commensurate with the costs.

Mr. Small: Does my hon. Friend recognise that we are being leapfrogged in maritime reactor technology by Japan, West Germany, and Russia, and that active attention is urgently necessary?

Mr. Fowler: Much of the technology is quite familiar to us. My hon. Friend must accept from us that we are determined to do only what is commercial. We are not going to commit ourselves to a prestige project which is not commercial.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Is not the hon. Member aware that his reluctance to add to his statement of 14th October is a little odd in the light of the news which has since come to hand that Germany now proposes to build a second ship after the "Otto Hahn"? Should not we examine carefully the economics which led Germany to that conclusion?

Mr. Fowler: The hon. Member is aware that in terms of nuclear power technology we have a considerable lead over the Germans. It may be necessary for the Germans to do more research in this field than it would be necessary for us to do. I repeat that we shall go ahead with the project when it shows commercial viability

Research Policy (White Paper)

Mr. Horderncol: asked the Minister of Technology whether he intends to publish a White Paper outlining the Government's future policy towards Government research establishments.

Mr. Fowler: As my right hon. Friend has previously explained, he has decided to defer the publication of the


White Paper on Research Policy in view of the Defence Review and the current investigation of the Select Committee on Science and Technology into research and development.—[Vol. 762, c. 48.]

Mr. Hordern: Can the Minister say when he expects to get the Select Committee's Report?

Mr. Fowler: That is a matter for the Select Committee. I have no influence over it. Present indications are that its report should be expected in the spring.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Training Colleges

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations he has received from the Vice-Chancellors in respect of Civil Service training colleges; and what reply he has made.

The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): None, Sir.

Mr. Dalyell: Are the Vice-Chancellors still discontented?

Mrs. Hart: As far as I know, no. They are aware that we are completely at their disposal to discuss this subject if they want to do so.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind the fact that in setting up this suggested college it is necessary that it should not become a hothouse for the Civil Service for studying at weekends or at any time time? Is she further aware that there would be great advantage in having a mixture of business people and civil servants so the we could have discussions between Government organisations and outside private industry?

Mrs. Hart: That point was fairly fully discussed in the very interesting debate that we had last week. I can assure the hon. Member that the very last thing we want to do is to create a Civil Service hothouse. We want to expose it to outside influence as much as possible.

Residential Colleges

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what plans he has for a Civil Service residential college in Scotland or the north of England.

Mrs. Hart: The Civil Service College is likely to need a residential centre close to London, and for this we intend to use the former Civil Defence College premises at Sunningdale, and another centre which can be in some other part of Britain. We are not yet near a point of decision about its siting.

Mr. Dalyell: Although in the view of many of us what the Fulton Committee said about civil servants' lack of knowledge of areas outside London was too glib by half, will my right hon. Friend nevertheless recognise that there is a strong case for a Civil Service College either in the North of England or in Scotland?

Mrs. Hart: The factors which will govern our decision on this college will be, first, that it will have to have premises which are suitable; secondly, that we shall want the premises to be near either a university or a large technical college and, thirdly, that we shall want our decision to be totally in line with our overall and very successful policy for dispersal.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the right hon. Lady consider going in for advanced planning, and consider her other function, as Minister for devolution, and then go for a college sited near a Parliament, namely, one in Scotland?

Mrs. Hart: I was wondering how the hon. Lady would resolve her conflict on this question. It would be an advantage to Scotland or to any other part of Britain far from London if we were able to site this part of the college somewhere else.

Fulton Committee (Report)

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service in which Departments of Whitehall senior policy advisers have been appointed in accordance with the recommendations of the Fulton Committee.

Mrs. Hart: A number of Departments have senior officers with particular responsibility for long-term policy. No new advisers have been appointed since the publication of the Report with precisely the role and status recommended by the Committee. But this recommendation is being studied.

Mr. Howell: Is this not rather an urgent matter in the light of the events of the last few days and the stormy history of the Government? Is not the impetus for forward thinking which Fulton argued would follow the setting up of senior policy advisers and planning units badly needed? Should not we get on with this matter?

Mrs. Hart: We are getting on with this matter. There is a distinction to be made between medium-term and long-term planning, and there is also a need for each Department to work out the best arrangements for its responsibilities and needs. There is real urgency in our approach to this matter.

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister for the Civil Service what steps she is taking to initiate an early review of the question of hiving off public programmes into autonomous public boards or corporations, as recommended by the Fulton Committee Report.

Mrs. Hart: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he moved the motion on the Fulton Report (Cmnd. Paper No. 3638) on the Civil Service on 21st November, 1968.—[Vol. 773, c. 154265.]

Mr. Howell: But is the right hon. Lady aware that we did not gather very clearly what the Prime Minister intended when he spoke in that debate? Does she not accept that the hiving off of Departments is inseparable from the development of the Civil Service Department and the whole Fulton Committee philosophy? Could she tell us what plans are intended and what Departments will, possibly, disappear as a result of setting up separate agencies instead?

Mrs. Hart: My right hon. Friend made it perfectly clear last Thursday that what we are doing at the moment is carrying out a review ourselves, while not precluding the possibility of taking it to outside experts later, but if I understood correctly the hon. Member's own contribution to that debate, he was concerned not only with hiving off to autonomous organisations but with hiving off—I think I quote him—to the price mechanism and the private sector, and that, of course, would be a very different matter.

Mr. Hordern: Has the right hon. Lady's Department any intention of hiving off public programmes to autonomous bodies or not?

Mrs. Hart: This is precisely the point on which an extremely careful review is now being conducted. The House would agree, I think, that it would be most unfortunate if hasty decisions were reached on a matter of such fundamental importance. What is important is that we should consider this carefully, as the Fulton Report recommended.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Marten: On a point of order This point concerns Question Time, Mr. Speaker, and I think that this is the proper moment to raise it. The other day, I asked the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House if we could see the right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General at the Dispatch Box more often, and he said that she would appear as often as any other Ministers. But she has been here today since 3.25 only and has answered only three Questions, all of them important. Would it be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to consider this again, since it is for back benchers that I am asking for the right to question the right hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker: This is rather a matter for questions at business time on Thursdays, I think.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order—

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker cannot take two points of order from two hon. Members at the same time.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: I wondered how the title "Minister for the Civil Service" had found its way on to the Order Paper. I understood that the right hon. Lady is the Paymaster-General, and that she answers for the Civil Service, but the title "Minister for the Civil Service" is surely new. Is this in order on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Baronet might refer to the Prime Minister's statement


on this very issue when the matter was debated.

Mr. Barnes: On a point of order. I think that there is a serious point here, because the order of Questions sheet issued to hon. Members makes it clear that the Paymaster-General will answer Questions starting not later than Question No. 35, and there has been no indication, I think, that the Questions to my right hon. Friend would be grouped in the way that they have been, with the Civil Service ones first and those in her capacity as Paymaster-General second. Surely they should all be taken in the order that they are tabled by hon. Members.

Mr. Speaker: This is a point which the hon. Gentleman must take up with the Leader of the House, I think.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: On a point of order. May I give notice that I intend to raise this matter at business question time tomorrow, in view of the fact that the Paymaster-General is due only today to answer Questions throughout the whole period from the beginning of the Session until the Christmas Recess?

Mr. Speaker: It is an ultra-refinement to give notice that an hon. Member intends to raise something at business question time.

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Frederick Malley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
As the House knows, Her Majesty's Government consider it vitally important to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by bringing the Non-Proliferation Treaty into force at an early date.
As foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, and in order to give renewed impetus to the Treaty, we are today depositing our instruments of ratification. We hope that other States will follow our example as soon as possible.

Mr. Wood: Does this take us very much further beyond the point that we had reached before the Recess? Second, as he has taken this further step, could the right hon. Gentleman say anything

further about the security arrangements for non-nuclear Powers? Third, can he, with his right hon. Friend, give an assurance that before there are any developments this House will have the chance of a debate, which, I think, was pressed on him on the last occasion from both sides?

Mr. Mulley: On the last point, we debated this after the signature of the Treaty in July and, of course, it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech, so it was open to any hon. Member during that considerable debate to raise matters affecting our ratification of the Treaty.
As to whether it takes us further, we must ratify before the Treaty can come into force. A lead is needed at present, and I am happy that the Government are giving a lead in disarmament.
As to the security assurances, these were, as I reported, welcomed by the Security Council and the resolution was adopted.

Mr. Pavitt: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on his success in this venture of pressing for the further implementation, may I ask whether he has been able to make any further progress with the Labour Party's policy of a nuclear-free zone?

Mr. Mulley: The nuclear-free zone in Europe really falls under general N.A.T.O.-Warsaw Pact considerations and would be outside the detailed provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, although, of course, if all the European countries sign, it will have the same effect as a nuclear-free zone.

Mr. James Davidson: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, perhaps, one of the useful by-products of the recent financial crisis is that France, although not a signatory of the Treaty, will have to curtail her nuclear programme, nevertheless? Have any steps been taken through normal diplomatic channels to get both Communist China and India to sign the Treaty, since if one does not sign the other obviously will not?

Mr. Mulley: It is unlikely that France will sign the Treaty, but she made clear in a number of public statements that she would behave as if she had. China, in view of the harsh terms in which she has described the Treaty, is unlikely to change her mind. We hope that India will one


day adhere to the Treaty, although present indications are that she is unwilling to adhere to it in its present form.

Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that some non-nuclear Powers may be reluctant to sign the Treaty as long as the present nuclear Powers are able to continue underground testing? Is he aware of recent evidence that it is now possible to distinguish such tests from earthquakes and other physical phenomena?

Mr. Mulley: I am obliged. One of the important aspects of the Treaty is the firm commitment to further measures of nuclear disarmament. There is general agreement, I think, that a comprehensive test ban should be one of the early measures. My hon. Friend will know that I made an initiative in this regard in July at Geneva. I hope that we can make progress shortly when those discussions resume in the new year.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since four members of the United Nations voted against the Treaty and 22 abstained, and the President-Elect of the United States has grave doubts over signing it while Soviet troops are in Czechoslovakia, how soon does the right hon. Gentleman expect that it will take effect? In view of the fact that, on the very day of that invasion, the United States and the Soviet Union were about to go further in talks on offensive ballistic missiles, and this was stopped by the events in Czechoslovakia, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that Mr. Nixon has good cause for caution?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Mulley: It is not for me at this stage to give advice to the President-Elect of the United States, but I am confident that the United States will ratify the Treaty before too long. As the hon. Gentleman knows, to bring the Treaty into force requires the three depositary Powers, of whom we are one, together with 40 other members. It is impossible to speculate about the exact date in those circumstances.

Mr. Orme: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that pessimism in this

matter will get us nowhere, and that those of us on this side welcome the steps which the Government have taken in laying these articles? What reaction does my right hon. Friend think West Germany will have towards this Treaty? Does he think that she will sign it?

Mr. Mulley: I would expect that West Germany will adhere to the Treaty in due course. It is true that West Germany is already bound by treaty not to manufacture nuclear weapons.

Mr. Marten: What is holding up the renegotiation of the Nassau Agreement within the context of this statement? Could the right hon. Gentleman suggest to the Prime Minister that he might get all the ambassadors from the Nassau Agreement countries together, after midnight some time?

Mr. Mulley: I do not see that any questions relating to the Nassau Agreement arise in the context of this Treaty.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is a good thing that General de Gaulle has cut down France's expenditure on nuclear testing? Is that not an example which this country might follow in reducing its wholesale spending on nuclear weapons and their development?

Mr. Mulley: We have no plans to expend money on further nuclear testing.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of our N.A.T.O. allies can be expected to follow suit, and when?

Mr. Mulley: I would expect in due course that all the members of N.A.T.O., with the exception of France, will adhere to the Treaty. I would like to take the opportunity to reaffirm our continued and wholehearted commitment to the collective security arrangements of N.A.T.O., as I did on 8th July. I also made clear then that the Treaty would not prohibit N.A.T.O. nuclear consultation and planning and the bilateral arrangements for the deployment of nuclear weapons within allied territory or the succession of a federated State to the former nuclear status of one of its components. We have made this clear and for these reasons I do not expect any difficulties with our N.A.T.O. allies.

Mr. Dalyell: have my night hon. Friend's excellent initiatives in chemical and biological warfare met with any progress?

Mr. Mulley: We have a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly, which, I hope, will be endorsed, to set up a study on both chemical and microbiological weapons of warfare, and I would also hope to pursue it further when the Geneva 18-Nation Committee reconvenes in the new year.

Mr. Ridley: What consultation did the Minister have with the West German Government before ratifying the Treaty? Was it one of the subjects which the Prime Minister discussed with the German Ambassador at 2 o'clock in the morning the ocher day?

Mr. Mulley: I was not present on that occasion, but I think that I can assure the hon. Member that this was not one of the subjects under discussion.

Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Fiend think that those diplomatic exchanges would be assisted if Her Majesty's Opposition ceased to display their patriotism by becoming the sychophantic apologists for the West German Government?

Mr. Mulley: I have been asked to advise the President-Elect of the United States and the President of France and I have declined to do so. It is not for me to advise Her Majesty's Opposition how to conduct themselves. I do not think that we have many complaints at the moment. We seem to be doing very well in debates in the House.

BILL PRESENTED

Transport (London)

Bill to make provision with respect to transport in and around Greater London and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Richard Marsh; supported by Mr. Anthony Greenwood, Mr. John Diamond, Mr. Stephen Swingler, and Mr. Bob Brown; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 18.]

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT)

Bill to make further provision with respect to the liability of an employer for injury to his employee which is attributable to any defect in equipment provided by the employer for the purposes of the employer's business; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. Hugh D. Brown; supported by Mr. John Cronin, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. David Watkins, Mr. Leslie Huckfield, Mr. William Molloy, Mr. George Lawson, and Mr. James Hamilton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th December and to be printed. [Bill 21.]

FREEDOM OF PUBLICATION (PROTECTION)

Bill to give greater freedom of publication of matters of public interest by clarifying and amending the law relating to contempt of court, official secrets and defamation, presented by Mr. Reginald Eyre; supported by Mr. Jasper More, Mr. William Deedes, Mr. Arthur Davidson, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Woodrow Wyatt, Mr. Iremonger, and Mr. Mark Carlisle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January and to be printed. [Bill 22.]

MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY

Bill to amend the law of England and Wales in relation to the property rights of husband and wife; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Bishop; supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Daniel Awdry, Mr. Robert Edwards, Dame Joan Vickers, Dr. Shirley Summer-skill, Mr. Eric S. Heifer, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mrs. Jill Knight, and Mr. Douglas Houghton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 23.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (FURTHER PROVISIONS)

Bill to make provision for the payment of pensions out of the National Insurance Fund for certain classes of person not eligible for pensions under the National


Insurance Act, 1946, presented by Mr. Maurice Macmillan; supported by Mr. Airey Neave, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Terence L. Higgins, and Mr. Anthony Royle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February and to be printed. [Bill 24.]

DISABLED PERSONS' PENSIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Bill to provide for pensions for disabled persons who do not at present qualify for benefit under the national insurance, industrial injuries or war disability schemes; to make provision for certain aids and amenities for the disabled; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Prior; supported by Dame Joan Vickers, Sir Harmar Nicholls, Mr. Richard Sharples, Mr. David Price, Mr. Timothy Kitson, Mr. Gordon Campbell, and Mr. Maurice Macmillan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st February and to be printed. [Bill 25.]

SCOTLAND AND WALES (REFERENDA)

Bill to authorise referenda in Scotland and in Wales to enable the Scottish and Welsh peoples respectively to indicate their views in regard to the future government of their countries; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. James Davidson; supported by Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. Grimond, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Richard Wainwright, and Dr. Winstanley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday 14th February and to be printed. [Bill 26.]

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS

Bill to make, in place of certain statutory provisions relating to Sunday observance and the playing of games, provision, in relation to Sunday, for preventing, in the case of certain spectacles taking place during certain hours, payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of watching them and, in the case of public dancing so taking place. payments being made by members of the public for the privilege of participating therein; to exclude certain acts from the scope of the Sunday Observance Act 1677; and to make provision for, and in connection with, the winding up of the

Cinematograph Fund, presented by Mr. John Parker; supported by Mr. William Hamling, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Douglas Houghton, Mr. Charles Pannell, and Mrs. Renée Short; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 27.]

PONIES

Bill to improve, the conditions under which ponies are exported; to prohibit or restrict the export of certain ponies; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Sir Robert Cary; supported by Mr. Albert Morris, Mr. John Eden, Mr. Leslie Lever, Mr. Frank Taylor, Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Burden, and Mr. Marcus Kimball; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

DIVORCE REFORM

Bill to amend the grounds for divorce and judicial separation; to facilitate reconciliation in matrimonial causes; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Alec Jones; supported by Mr. Leo Abse, Mr. Daniel Awdry, Dame Joan Vickers, Mrs. Lena Jeger, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Peter M. Jackson, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Alexander Lyon, and Mr. William Wilson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 6th December, and to be printed. [Bill 17.]

NURSERY SCHOOLS (PARENTAL CONTRIBUTIONS)

Bill to enable education authorities to charge fees for nursery schools, and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. David Howell; supported by Mr. John Hill, Sir George Sinclair and Mr. Kenneth Baker; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th January and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

PUBLIC HEALTH ACT (AMENDMENT)

Bill to enable local authorities to deal more effectively with recurring nuisances, presented by Captain Walter Elliot; supported by Mr. Joseph Hiley, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. R. W. Brown, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, Miss Joan Quennell,


Mr. James Tinn, Mr. W. H. Loveys, Mr. Dudley Smith, Mr. Willam Hamling, Mr. Edward Milne, and Mr. Iremoonger; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 30.]

INDUSTRIAL INFORMATION

Bill to provide for the protection of industrial information, presented by Sir Edward Boyle; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 31.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the enactments providing for benefits out of the Industrial Injuries Fund in respect of industrial diseases; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Michael McGuire; supported by Mr. Alex Eadie, Mr. Eric Ogden, Mr. Tom Swain, Mr. Robert Woof, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. Adam Hunter, Mr. S. 0. Davies, Mr. Edwin Wainwright, Mr. Albert Roberts, Mr. John Forrester, and Mr. Charles Mapp; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 32.]

HOUSE OF COMMONS REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1949 with respect to the obligation of the Secretary of State to take action on the Report of a Boundary Commission, presented by Sir Cyril Black; supported by Sir Frederick Bennett, Mr. Charles Doughty, Mr. Victor Goodhew, Sir Stephen McAdden, Sir Gerald Nabarro, and Mr. Frank Taylor; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS ACT 1965 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the Redundancy Payments Act, 1965, presented by Mr. Ire-monger; supported by Mr. Marcus Kimball, Mr. John Farr, Mr. Michael Jopling. and Mr. Peter Mills; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) ACT 1927 (AMENDMENT)

Bill to render illegal certain agreements and transactions affecting bidding at auctions, presented by Mr. Costain; supported by Sir John Vaughan-Morgan, Mr. Chichester-Clark, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. George Strauss, Mr. Ire-monger, Mr. David Webster, and Colonel Sir Tufton Beamish; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st February and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

EXPORT OF MANUSCRIPTS

Bill to control and regulate the export of historical manuscripts, presented by Mr. David Marquand; supported by Mr. John P. Mackintosh, Mr. Michael Foot, Mr. Philip Goodhart, and Mr. Esmond Wright; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

ESTATE DUTY (SURVIVING SPOUSE)

Bill to amend the enactments relating to Estate Duty to provide for the deferment of payment of Estate Duty by a surviving spouse; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Humphrey Atkins on behalf of Colonel Lancaster; supported by Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Anthony Royle, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Sir George Sinclair, Dame Joan Vickers, Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine, and Sir Spencer Summers; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 14th February, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT

Bill to require employers and each of their employees to exchange a written contract of employment comprising certain specific terms and conditions; to regulate the rights of employer and employee to minimum periods of notice; to regulate the calculation of holiday pay and sick pay; to provide for the registration of contracts of employment; and for connected purposes, presented by Mr. Richard Wainwright; supported by Mr. Grimond, Mr. Peter Bessell, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. David Steel, and Dr. Winstanley;


read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st February, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend section 1 of the Workmen's Compensation and Benefit (Amendment) Act, 1965, presented by Mr. James Griffiths; supported by Mr. Harold Finch, Mr. G. Elfed Davies, Mr. S. 0. Davies, Mr. Clifford Williams, Mr. Arthur Probert, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. Roy Hughes, Mr. Fred Evans, Mr. William Edwards, Mr. J. Idwal Jones, Mr. T. Alec Jones, and Mr. Arthur Pearson; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 24th January, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

CONTROL OF VENEREAL DISEASES

Bill to provide for the compulsory examination and treatment of persons suspected of suffering from venereal diseases by the restoration of provisions similar to those formerly contained in Defence Regulation 33B, presented by Sir Myer Galpern; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 21st March, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

RENAL TRANSPLANTATION

Bill to permit removal from the body of a human person, duly certified as dead, of any kidney or kidneys required for the direct purpose of saving the life of another sick human being unless there is reason to believe that the deceased during his lifetime had instructed otherwise; and to establish a Central Renal Registry, presented by Sir Gerald Nabarro; supported by Colonel Sir Malcolm Stoddart-Scott, Dr. Reginald Bennett, Mr. John Cronin, Dr. Broughton, Dr. John Dunwoody, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Laurence Pavitt, Mr. David Lane, Sir Donald Kaberry, Mr. Peter Emery, and Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 41.]

LIVE HARE COURSING (ABOLITION)

Bill to abolish live hare coursing, presented by Mr. Robert Sheldon; supported by Mr. Eric S. Heller, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Joel Barnett, and Mr. John Ellis; read the First

time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 42.]

NATIONAL INSURANCE

Bill to provide a pension out of the National Insurance Fund to certain widows unable to qualify under the National Insurance Acts, presented by Mr. Bruce Campbell; supported by Mr. R. Bonner Pink, Miss Mervyn Pike, Dame Irene Ward, Mr. Walter Clegg, Mr. Hugh Rossi, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. Philip Holland, and Mr. Maurice Macmillan; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 7th February, and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

EXPANSION OF NEW TOWNS (REFERENDUM)

Bill to enable not less than 100 ratepayers in any area scheduled for expansion under New Towns procedure to require local authority to hold a Referendum to decide whether or not to proceed with the expansion, provided that such a move is made within two years of the Designated Plan being made public, presented by Sir Harmar Nicholls; supported by Sir David Renton; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 28th February, and to be printed. [Bill 44.]

INSURANCE (EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY)

Bill to require employers to insure against their liability for personal injury to their employees; and for purposes connected with the matter aforesaid, presented by Mr. David Watkins; supported by Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Bishop, Mrs. Braddock, Mr. Donald Coleman, Mr. George Craddock, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. James Hamilton, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Alexander Lyon, Mr. Stanley Orme, and Mr. Edwin Wainwright; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 31st January, and to be printed. [Bill 45.]

DISABLEMENT COMMISSION

Bill to establish a Commission to review pensions and benefits for the disabled and to make recommendations on changes and additions, presented by Mr. Gordon Campbell; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th December, and to be printed. [Bill 46.]

WELSH AFFAIRS

Staternent of Government proposals for reorganising local government in Wales (Command Paper No. 3340). being a matter relating exclusively to Wales and Monmouthshire, referred to the Welsh Grand Committee for their consideration. —[Mr. Peart.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present session relating to elections to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and to local government elections in Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise any payment out of moneys provided by Parliament or payment into the Consolidated Fund which nay be required by or result from provisions relating to the registration of political descriptions in order to allow their use on nomination papers and ballot papers at local government elections in Great Britain.—[Mr. Fitch.]

Orders of the Day — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Again considered in Committee [Progress, 26th November].

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Clause 2

SERVICE DECLARATIONS AND QUALIFICATION

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Richard Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 31, after 'Council', insert:
'Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes., the Red Cross and other services ancillary to or sponsored by Govermnent departments'.
Subsection (3) says that:
Persons who are employed by the British Council in posts outside the United Kingdom and their wives…
shall be included among persons having a service qualification in the same way as members of the forces and their wives.
The purpose of the Amendment is to extend the privilege given by the sub-section to people who are employed in very much the same way as members of the British Council, and who may be employed by Government Departments. I appreciate that there are difficulties in extending almost indefinitely the kind of people who may be entitled to have the same voting privileges as members of the Services. I also appreciate that it was a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that this privilege should be extended to members of the overseas staff of the British Council and their spouses.
What I do not know is why Mr. Speaker's Conference decided that the privilege should be extended only to members of the British Council and riot to those people employed by the Government in very similar capacities. If one accepts that the privilege should be extended to members of the British Council, it is very difficult to leave out members of the N.A.A.F.I. staff. Their position is much more akin to that of the Service voter than is the position of the British Council.
We also mention members of the Red Cross in the Amendment. When the Services are overseas, members of the Red Cross are frequently attached to them in ancillary capacities. If the privilege is extended to members of the British Council, it should equally be extended to members of the British Red Cross serving in this capacity.
We also include a rather more general phrase:
…and other Services ancillary to or sponsored by Government departments.
This covers the people who may be attached in one way or another to the Services, or may have attachment to Government Departments in the same way as the British Council.
I think that I need say no more in explanation. The Amendment speaks for itself.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): As I was until recently at the Ministry of Defence, I should go a long way with the Amendment—that is, if I were dealing with it purely on sympathy. But I shall advance good reasons why we cannot accept the Amendment.
The first is a question of principle to which the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) referred, namely, that the main purpose of the Clause as a whole is to give special arrangements to Crown servants, members of the forces and their wives who are overseas, so that they can be registered as electors while they are abroad and when they have no residence in the United Kingdom. The problem is to know where one draws the line in going outside that very specific delimitation.
On the question of the N.A.A.F.I., I found in my travels with the Services, both recently and in what is now the far distant past, that there are also, certainly on R.A.F. stations, the Catholic Women's League, the Church of Scotland Canteen, the Salvation Army, the Malcolm Club, the W.R.V.S.. S.S.A.F.A., and the C.V.W.W. There is an inherent difficulty in deciding where, if we extended the list of people given the special arrangement for registration, we should draw the line.
There is also a practical problem. I do not suggest that it necessarily applies

to N.A.A.F.I., but it might to some of the other organisations. It was as a result of Mr. Speaker's Conference that it was decided to bring in the British Council. It was an essential part of the special arrangements for Crown servants and Service men and women that the appropriate Government Department accepted the responsibility for making arrangements to give an effective opportunity to persons having a service qualification to exercise from time to time, as occasion might require, the right of making and cancelling service declarations and of appointing proxies.
I concede that by its nature, if my argument were on that precise point, N.A.A.F.I. is an organisation which could probably do this. But N.A.A.F.I. cannot be singled out. All of us know that on Army bases and R.A.F. stations other excellent people are providing a variety of social services for the Armed Forces. Much as my right hon. Friend realises the good work done by this variety of organisations, he cannot accept the Amendment, because of the matter of principle on where one draws the line, and the practical problems. The Services accept a great deal of responsibility for making sure that Servicemen know of their rights as Service voters. I ask the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Mr. A. P. Costain: I have never heard a weaker argument from the Government Front Bench. The first thing we must ask is whether the individuals concerned are doing a job of national service in supplementing the work of the Armed Forces. No hon. Member will disagree, particularly those who have seen the wonderful work they are doing, that they are doing good service. Why should we disfranchise them because a Government Department finds it too difficult to give them the vote, and says that the privilege in question cannot be extended any further?
Surely the Home Office can think of a formula whereby those people would be certified by the local commanding officer as being essential? There would be no loophole. We have lived in an era of peace for many years, and the longer we are in such an era the more need there is for such services overseas.
The Minister has put forward a deplorable case. In fact, there is no argument to be put. I hope that my hon.


Friend will divide the Committee on the question. I cannot see any hon. Member voting against it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I hope that the Government will go a little further than they have done. I appreciate that the Under-Secretary has given a sympathetic reply; that is to say, I do not understand that he is in any way hostile to the spirit or principle of the Amendment. I am extremely suspicious of arguments against accepting an Amendment which is good in spirit and in principle simply on the basis that we do not know where to draw the line. I understand this argument where any substantial Government expense is involved. I am told that Treasury officials have the word "repercussions" graven on their hearts and utter shrill screams in their dreams when the word occurs to them. But we are not here dealing with such a case because, as far as I know, the expense involved would be virtually nil.
I do not see why the N.A.A.F.I. should not have the privileges of the Services, or why the Red Cross should not have the privileges of the Services, especially as the line has been enlarged to include the British Council. I should have thought that the Government could have retained control, perhaps by a redraft of the Amendment, of such organisations as the Malcolm Clubs and the Catholic Women's League by retaining the power to approve the particular organisations concerned.
I am very reluctant to divide the Committee within 10 minutes of its restarting, but I shall certainly advise my hon. Friends to do so unless something more is forthcoming from the Government.

Sir Donald Kaberry: I believe that the discussion as to whether members of the British Council must go abroad when posted, whether members of the N.A.A.F.I. must go abroad when posted, and whether members of other organisations must do so is a very doubtful edgeline decision. I should have thought that in response to the appeal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), the Clause could be looked at again. It will not swing a General Election, it will not decide a by-election, but it will, at any rate, give a few people the satisfaction

of feeling that they have the right to be put on the register so that they may vote if they so desire at an appropriate time.
I hope that the Government will look at the Clause again.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I assure the Committee that, because of my special interest in the matter, I have looked extremely carefully at the Amendment—probably more carefully because of this sympathy—than I have at other Amendments. It is not a question whether people do a good job. No one denies that excellent work is being done by the N.A.A.F.I. and other bodies which I have mentioned. I advance a technical argument—the question of an organisation on behalf of the Government dealing with this question of registration of non-Service personnel. I have before me a photostat copy of a D.C.I. which deals with Parliamentary and local government elections—we may return later to the question of how absentee votes will be dealt with—which illustrates that in the case of service personnel this matter can be handled by the Service authorities. Similar arrangements can be made with regard to the British Council.
There are many people in this country who are civilians and who go abroad and move off the registration roll and there is a real problem in deciding where to draw the line in the case of civilians. It is not a question of expense. A fundamental issue is involved as to the degree to which we allow those not domiciled in this country to have the right to vote.
There is the additional point that with the Service member it is not just a question of going abroad for a short period. Members of the Services move about in the country, for instance, from R.A.F. station to R.A.F. station, from ship to ship or from one Naval base or port to another.
Much as I would, by sympathy and attachment, like to make some arrangements for the N.A.A.F.I. and the Red Cross and others, I must, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, resist this Amendment.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I always understood that the difficulty was rather different, that where we had these people serving abroad in what I might


term quasi-Service organisations like the N.A.A.F.I., the difficulty was one of registration, not of principle. I remember the discussion we had at Mr. Speaker's Conference, when we were told—if I can paraphrase the evidence we received without causing a breach of privilege—that there was no one person who could be made responsible for dealing with N.A.A.F.I. personnel or the W.R.V.S. or other personnel who might benefit from this Clause.
I did not understand that there was this question of principle; that it was not the wish to grant the franchise to someone serving abroad for a limited period if that person was not a member of the Armed Forces. If that is the Government's motive in refusing the Amendment, I would be very much inclined to the view of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that it is not a valid argument for refusing those people the vote. I cannot see any distinction between a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces serving, say, for two years abroad, and someone in the N.A.A.F.I. serving for a similar period. I think that both types of people would be equally interested in the results of a General Election which might take place while they were abroad.
I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again about this matter. If he were to tell me that it was physically impossible, as we were informed by the Home Office at Mr. Speaker's Conference, I would, of course, have to accept it, but if it is merely a question of making a distinction between those serving in the Red Cross and members of the Armed Forces as to the interest they may take in the results of a Parliamentary election, I cannot accept it as valid.

Dame Joan Vickers: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). I cannot see any difference in this respect between someone serving in the N.A.A.F.I. and someone serving in the Armed Forces. As the Committee may know, I come from a Service town, and in such places one finds that most of the men have their votes in the constituencies in which their relations are living, and not necessarily where their wives are living at the

time. That should apply to N.A.A.F.I. personnel. Why should not a dockyard worker, who has the possibility of being stationed in Malta or Singapore, or else. where, be able to exercise his vote in the same way as does his opposite number in the Armed Forces? It seems contradictory.
I can understand the difficulty about the Red Cross and other voluntary organisations, because these people are not posted but go abroad voluntarily and must have a base in this country. But the people I think of do not have a base. If a dockyard worker goes overseas, and he relinquishes his residence in this country, if it is a council house he must get out of it, and if it is a private house he generally lets it. He therefore has no residential qualifications for voting. As these N.A.A.F.I. personnel serve the forces overseas, it is legitimate to argue that they should be also granted the vote.

Mr. Donald Williams: I support my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg). The difficulty seems to be about the domicile and position of a taxpayer serving abroad. I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that when it comes to the taxation of firms the Treasury is very quickly able to isolate the problem, and give those firms relative domicile for taxation purposes.
It seems extraordinary that since it is possible to do that so easily when taxation is concerned it cannot be done equally easily for the enfranchisement of these people. There is an obligation in terms of taxation—surely they should be entitled to vote.

Mr. Rees: Mr. Rees rose—

Mr. Hogg: I hoped that I was right in thinking that the Under-Secretary was rising to give me a little more comfort from the Government Front Bench. If, by rising now, I am stopping that comfort, I will readily give way to the hon. Gentleman, but if I would thereby be receiving another dusty answer, which seems to be the case from the manner of the hon. Gentleman, I have no alternative but to ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's good will, but, obviously, he is in the hands of bureaucrats. If only to


teach the bureaucrats a lesson, we have to act.
Apart from the P.P.S., who is in an embarrassing position, there are only three supporters of the Government in the Chamber at the moment. I was assured last night that the Government Whips mean nothing to them and that they vote accord ng to their consciences. The other 300, or whatever the number is, cannot vote according to their consciences, because they will not have heard the debate.

So there are four consciences on the benches opposite to which I appeal. Let them vote according to the way in which the debate has gone. I shall ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote with me for the Amendment and I am very grateful for the support of the Liberal Party.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 139, Noes 187.

Division No. 11.]
AYES
[4.10 p.m.


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gurden, Harold
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bell, Ronald
Harrison, Brian (Maidors)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Percival, Ian


Biffen, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pink, R. Bonner


Biggs-Davison, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Pounder, Rafton


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, J. M. L.


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Renton, Fit. Hn. Sir David


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J. E. B.
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Boyd-Carponter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Ridsdale, Julian


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Holland, Philip
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.Col. Sir Walter
Hooson, Emlyn
 Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hornby, Richard
Scott-Hopkins, James


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharples, Richard


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus,N&amp;M)
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Silvester, Frederick


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Iremonger, T. L.
Sinclair, Sir George


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Speed, Keith


Channon, H. P. G.
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Stainton, Keith


Chichester-Clark, R.
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Clegg, Walter
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Stodart, Anthony


Cordle, John
Lane, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Costaln, A. P.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Tapsell, Peter


Currie, G. B. H.
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Loveys, W. H.
van Straubenzec, W. R.


Dance, James
Lubbock, Eric
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dean Paul
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Cromly)
Waddington, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McMaster, Stanley
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Doughty, Charles
Maginnis, John E.
Walters, Dennis


Drayson, G. B.
Marten, Neil
Ward, Dame Irene


Eden, Sir Jchn
Maude, Angus
Webster, David


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carsisalton)
Mawby, Ray
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn.


Elliott,R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, P. J.
William Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Fisher, Nigel
 More, Jasper
Worsley, Marcus


Galbraith, His. T. G.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wright, Esmond


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wylie, N. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar



Goodhart, Philip
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gower, Raymond
Neave, Airey
Mr. Bernard Weatherill and


Grant, Anthony
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)
Onslow, Crarney





NOES


Albu, Austen
Bence, Cyril
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Andritt, Walter
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)


Allen, Scholefield
Binns, John
Buchan, Norman


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James


Armstrong, Er nest
Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Chapman, Donald


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Coe, Denis


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bradley, Tom
Coleman, Donald


Barnett, Joel
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Concannon, J. D.


Baxter, Wlllian
Brooks, Edwin
Conlan, Bernard


Beanin, Alan
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Helper)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)




Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hunter, Adam
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hynd, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Delargy, Hugh
Jackson, Cohn (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dempsey, James
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Pavitt, Laurence


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dickens, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dobson, Ray
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


Doig, Peter
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunn, James A.
Judd, Frank
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dunwcody, Mrs. Gwyne'h (Exeter)
Kelley, Richard
Probert, Arthur


Eadie, Alex
Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rankin, John


Ellis, John
Lawson, George
Rees, Merlyn


English Michael
Leadhitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Ensor, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Richard, Ivor


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lester, Miss Joan
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, Cwynfor (C'marthen)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Fernyhough, E.
Lomas, Kenneth
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Finch, Harold
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, Rt. Iln. William


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Macdonald, A. H.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Sheldon, Robert


Ford, Ben
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Forrester, John
Mackie, John
Short, Rt.Hn. Edwartl(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Fowler, Gerry
Mackintosh, John P.
Short, Mrs. Reneé(W'hampton, N.E.)


Freeson, Reginald
Maclennan, Robert
Silverman, Julius


Gardner, Tony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Small, William


Garrett, W. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Snow, Julian


Ginsburg, David
McNamara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Strauss, Rt. Mi. G. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Mahon, Simon (Bootie)
Thornton, Ernest


Gregory, Arnold
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Tinn, James


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mallalieu,J.P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Urwin, T. W.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Wainwright, Edwin (Deame Valley)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Marks, Kenneth
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Griffiths, Rt. kin. James (Llaneily)
Marquand, David
Wallace, George


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Watkins, David (Consett)


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mendelson, John
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hamling, Wiliam
Mikardo, Ian
Weitzman, David


Hannan, William
Milian, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Haseldine, Norman
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hattersley, Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hefter, Eric S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willis, Rt. Ho. George


Herbison. Rt. Hit. Margaret
Medley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Winnick, David


Hooley, Frank
Neal, Harold
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Horner, John
Newens, Stan
Woof, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oakes, Gordon



Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. John McCann and


Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Orme, Stanley
Mr. Joseph Harper.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Padley, Walter

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 37, leave out from 'shall' to end of Clause and add:
'likewise be qualified if he is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with his wife.'

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I suggest that the Committee discusses with this Amendment, Amendment No. 63, in the name of the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), in page 3, line 7, at end insert:
'and the wife of a merchant seaman shall be entitled to be treated in like manner in circumstances corresponding to those in which the merchant seaman is so treated'.

Mr. Sharples: I am in a little difficulty, because Amendment No. 4 is purely drafting. Amendment No. 63 covers a much more substantive point.
Subsection (4) is difficult to understand and also ungrammatical. It says:
Where a married woman has a service qualification, her husband shall have one in circumstances corresponding to those in which a wife does.
The subsection is badly drafted and is meaningless. Our proposed wording is an improvement.
I do not propose to develop the argument in support of Amendment No. 62. I will leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers), who has much more experience of these matters than I do and who will be able to develop the point much better.

Dame Joan Vickers: I base the wording of Amendment No. 63 on Clause 2(4). If the husband of a married woman


with a Service qualification is to have such a qualification, the same should apply to the wives of merchant seamen. In these enlightened days of merchant shipping—I have had the opportunity of going over many ships—there is special accommodation for wives. It is desirable that wives should travel with their husbands. When they go overseas for lengthy periods, they must give up their residential qualification in Britain. Therefore, the wives of merchant seamen should have an equal right to that granted to spouses in Clause 2(4).
I cannot see how the Amendment can be rejected, because it obviously ties up with the Government's intention in subsection (4).

Mr. John Tilney: I strongly support the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). Many wives sail with their husbands in ships leaving Liverpool. I hope that in future more ships will sail carrying the wives of merchant seamen. Wives who accompany their husbands often have to shut up their homes for one voyage. The wives need not always be on board.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I read of an agreement arrived at recently between the National Union of Seamen and certain employers to extend the practice of wives sailing with their husbands regularly. I am not sure whether this practice calls for action under the Clause or for the wives of merchant seamen being given the same proxy voting facilities as their husbands have. The Government should consider this aspect further because more wives will travel with their husbands on long voyages. The agreement to which I have referred relates to absences of 60 days a year.

Mr. Costain: I added my name to Amendment No. 63 because I think that it is a very proper one. I have a good deal of experience of tankers. Increasingly, tankers' crews are accepting that it is right that wives should travel with the men. Ships are getting bigger. The larger ships provide facilities for wives and families to travel with the merchant seamen.
The principle enshrined in the Amendment is accepted in relation to British

Council employees. Merchant seamen are accepted as right and proper people to be put in this category. It is only fair that the wives of merchant seamen should be accorded exactly the same privilege as that which applies to British Council employees.
I hope that we shall not be told that this would be too difficult to organise. We know who the wives and families are. We know that the seaman has a vote. The Government should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am not opposed to the principle of the Amendment. However, I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be possible for this to be abused. I understand that there is a new system of legal tax dodging by which a Briton wanting to dodge tax theoretically does not have a residential qualification in Britain; he stays abroad theoretically for more than six months and hence is not liable to our tax laws.
I am told on good authority that there is a lady who is also a wife, but not of a merchant seaman; they have a very big yacht. She is never here, theoretically. She goes abroad with her husband. She spends all the time on the yacht. She does not pay tax, nor does her husband.

Sir D. Kaberry: Is she a British subject?

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Sir D. Kaberry: Would the husband be a merchant seaman?

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis: I am concerned in case such a concession as is proposed here should be abused by someone saying," I, too, am sailing the high seas on my yacht and I am, therefore, doing some merchant trading."

Mr. Lubbock: If the hon. Member looks at Clause 3(1,b) he will see that to be a merchant seaman one has to be employed on board ship. If he is referring to the owner of the ship, I would point out that the owner is not a merchant seaman within the meaning of the definition.

Mr. Lewis: I agree. I have said that I am in favour of the principle suggested


here, but I was asking the Minister to ensure that there was no danger of tax evaders using this concession on the basis that they are not domiciled here. It seems to me that the Amendment safeguards the position, but I ask my hon. Friend to watch it because it seems to be the growing practice for very rich people to have yachts on which they live, theoretically not being domiciled in this country, and paying no taxes anywhere.
I know that a merchant seaman would not do that, but I should not like to see others trying to cash in on the concession. I know a very big merchant seaman who, I am told, gets £450,000 a week—or so the Press states. He is one of the biggest shipowners in the country, and he pays no Income Tax anywhere. Theoretically, he lives nowhere. He has an Argentinian passport and a house in Greece, he lives on his yacht and he is in the merchant shipping business.

Mr. Peter Mahon: is my hon. Friend talking about shipowners or about merchant seamen?

Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is quite right to make that intervention, but some of these people have very clever lawyers and accountants, particularly when it becomes a question of registering for tax-dodging purposes.

Sir D. Kaberry: Could the hon. Member state at which hostel or club his friend, who is getting £450,000 a week, stays?

Mr. Lewis: It might well be a club or hostel which he owns.

Mr. Lubbock: It seems to me that the point of substance raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) has been overlooked by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I have not re-read all the evidence which we received, but this is a point of such importance that I am sure that it would have come to my mind when I saw the Amendment on the Notice Paper. If I am allowed to say so, I am certain that if this had been drawn to the attention of Mr. Speaker's Conference they would have said that it was illogical for us to extend the vote to wives accompanying husbands away from their homes where their husbands are

qualified because of their occupation, service or employment and not to extend the vote to the wives of merchant seamen.
I ask the Minister whether these ladies will be qualified within the terms of Clause 5. If so, we need not worry about the matter; they are accompanying their husbands away from home and, because their husbands are qualified, through occupation, service or employment, the wives will similarly be qualified. If he cannot give that assurance, then the hon. Lady's Amendment should be incorporated in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) commented on the drafting of the Clause. I agree that the wording of subsection (4) is extremely clumsy, although it does not appear to be ungrammatical. May I pursue a point which I made on Second Reading—probably unwisely, because Mr. Speaker told me then that it was a Committee point—as this seems to be the most suitable opportunity for me to raise it. The comment applies not only to Clause 2, but to some other parts of the Bill.
Where we are, in effect, amending the provisions of the 1949 Act—in this case Section 10—it might have been much simpler if we had reprinted those Sections as amended by the Bill rather than legislate by adding bits here and there so that we are obliged to look at the two Acts simultaneously. I cannot deal with that point on this Amendment, but, as I mentioned it on Second Reading. I am sure that the Minister is seized of it. Will he therefore consider whether this Clause should be taken away entirely and a new Clause brought back on Report which incorporates Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 and the Amendment in subsection (4)? That would be a much tidier method of approaching the problem and would remove the drafting difficulty mentioned by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): The discussion has ranged widely. I never cease to wonder at the ingenuity of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). With respect to him. I do not think that the point which he raised about taxation has much to do with the problem under discussion, but it was highly illuminating.
I challenge the claim made by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) that the subsection is ungrammatical. I can see the problem which faces him in seeking to clarify it, but the clarification takes place in paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, which uses the words:
and any man who is the husband of such a person and is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with his wife".
There are two difficulties about the Amendment. In the first place, there is a difficulty in the attempt to make the situation analogous with that of wives of Service voters. Such a wife has a Service qualification not only when she is residing abroad with her husband, but from the moment that she leaves the United Kingdom to be with her husband. Adding a tighter qualification here to clear up the grammar, therefore, would wipe out the additional provision which gives her a qualification from the moment she leaves the United Kingdom to be with her husband.
The hon. Member criticises the grammar. I do not particularly like the wording, nor do I like the wording in a great deal of legislation, but as long as the wording is accurate, effective and meaningful, and as long as it serves its purpose, as it does here, I see no reason to change it. It seems to me quite clear and, because of Schedule 3, we should not change it.
We must look at what Clause 3 does. It is involved with the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference as they affect merchant seamen. The problem of the merchant seaman is that he is abroad for a long period and that when he is not abroad he is often living not at his permanent home address but in a club or hostel. Therefore it was felt that such a club or hostel would be acceptable as a place of residence for him. Merchant seamen are at sea for such periods that by any normal standards they can hardly be regarded as residents of the United Kingdom for registration purposes.
I am not sure that that is true of wives. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested that this problem had never been properly looked at. I have done so. It does not seem to me that the situation which he envisages can

arise. We are discussing the matter in terms of registration and not in terms of voting. It should be taken care of under Clause 5, dealing with the right to vote. A wife can register in the normal way, at her home address. Even with the present enlightened policies of most shipping companies, I hardly think that a permanent odyssey will take place with husband and wife abroad. If we went further we should be taking it further in concept than the extension for Service men, whose wives are not entitled to make a Service declaration until they are about to proceed overseas with their husbands.
The other problem remains. I understand that the reason for the Amendment, although I think that it is basically mistaken, is to ensure the right to vote by postal voting, for instance, or by proxy, but that is taken care of under Clause 5. The Amendment would be inappropriate in any case, because it asks that the wife should be resident at the place at which she would have been resident but for the nature of her occupation, and, with all respect, I can hardly think that being a wife would be acceptable as an occupation.
Although a merchant seaman might be resident in a hostel or club, I would hope that, in general, this would not be true of the wives of merchant seamen. I hope that, with that explanation and assurance, the hon. Lady will see fit to withdraw her Amendment.

Mr. Sharples: The Committee will be disappointed with that reply. The wording of my Amendment may well not be perfect, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to consider the matter between now and Report. The Committee is in some difficulty over the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers). Every hon. Member who has taken part in the debate has spoken in favour of that Amendment, but, because of the way in which the Amendments have been selected, it is not possible for the Committee to reach a decision on the matter this afternoon.
It is difficult to know how to advise my hon. Friend, but I suggest that she puts down an Amendment in similar terms on Report. That will give the Home Office time to consider this very


important matter, which does not seem to have received proper consideration.

Mr. James Dempsey: If the hon. Lady withdraws her Amendment, what assurance have we that a similar Amendment will be considered on Report? My hon. Friend's reply was rather negative. Whether a lady is resident in a hostel or on board ship, if her husband is in the merchant navy, she is entitled to the consideration which is given to the wives of Service men.

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out the difficulty in which the Committee finds itself. My Amendment is purely drafting, but the substantive Amendment, that of my hon. Friend, was selected only for discussion and not for a Division. Had it been possible to have a Division on it, I would certainly have advised my hon. Friend to divide the Committee in the absence of an assurance from the Government. As it is, I think that her only remedy is to try to put down a similar Amendment on Report, and I understand that that would be possible.

Dame Joan Vickers: We ought to have an assurance that the matter will be considered between now and Report. I understand that this matter is tied up with Clause 5(1,b). If the hon. Gentleman will agree to look at this matter and give us some assurance, I shall be happy to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Buchan: I am in some difficulty because I am not clear what it is I am being asked to make a statement about. I explained that we were really concerned with the problem of voting, and I gave the assurance that that was covered by Clause 5. I thought that I had made the position about registration clear when I said that any of the ladies involved would be regarded as normally resident at home, unlike merchant seamen.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: There is one difficulty about registration. If a wife accompanies her husband on a long voyage, they may let their house furnished while they are away. If the period of their absence coincides with the date for registration, the people then resident in the house will not be registered anywhere on the qualifying date if the merchant seaman and his wife are regarded as

being resident in the house. Will my hon. Friend consider that?

4.45 p.m.

Sir D. Kaberry: I hope that the Under-Secretary will make it abundantly clear that this is a question of registration and not of claiming the right to vote as an absentee voter, as it were, by postal vote.

Mr. Buchan: I thought that I had made it clear from the beginning when I tried to make a distinction between registration and the right to vote by proxy or a postal vote.
The issue now being raised is general and could apply in many situations. I think that hon. Members are concerned to ensure that we reduce the possibility to a minimum. I will consider that. However, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, because, although I understand the anxiety, I do not believe that it is warranted. But I will consider the matter. I hope that that will not be taken as a commitment, because there may be nothing to be committed about.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will consider the principle of ensuring that the wives of merchant seamen who are travelling with their husbands in some other parts of the world will have the right to vote?

Mr. Buchan: I do not believe that I can be much clearer than I have been. I have said several times that voting is dealt with in Clause 5 and that the issue of voting is different from that of registration. Hon. Members have now raised what is a general difficulty of those people who are absent from their residences at the time of registration. This is a general problem rather than a merchant seaman problem. I have said that I will look at it. I am not giving a commitment, but saying that I will consider something which is of general application. I am trying to be fair to the Committee, and I hope that I have been.

Mr. Sharples: The hon. Gentleman has said that he will consider the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend. This has been a useful discussion. The hon. Gentleman asked us originally to reject the proposal, but, of course, the Committee is not in a position either to accept or reject it, because the Amendment has not been selected for a Division.

Mr. Buchan: I suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn, which might solve the problem.

Mr. Sharples: As the substantive Amendment has not been moved but merely discussed with my Amendment, it is not possible to withdraw it. However, it has been a useful discussion and several matters have been raised which hon. Members will wish to consider on Report. It is not possible to carry the matter further now and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw Amendment No. 4.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Sharples: I urge the Government to reconsider the whole drafting of the Clause. I appreciate the difficulty involved in drafting a Clause of this kind, but considering that many people other than lawyers will have to read this provision to know their rights, it should be drafted in more understandable language.
I am particularly concerned with subsection (1) which says:
A service declaration shall be made with a view to registration in the register of electors for a particular year, and with reference to the qualifying date to which that register looks, and shall not have effect to enable the declarant to be registered in any other register.
That is extraordinary language which is almost impossible to understand. I still do not know what a register looks at. My hon. Friend's and I tabled an Amendment to cover this point, but, unfortunately, it was not selected. I also hope that consideration will be given to my earlier remarks about subsection (4).

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I appreciate his remarks about the need for people, and particularly lawyers, to understand this provision. Discussions have taken place with the Service Departments, which assume a certain responsibility for legislation of this kind. I also note his remarks about the Opposition Amendment which was not selected.
We have here a change in regard to the Service vote in that we are making arrangements whereby a form can be filled in in advance of the compilation

of a register. That is the reason for the present wording of this provision. Information about a Service vote can be left, to be given to the registration officer after 15th October. The wording of the Clause has been chosen carefully to cover this point. I am always prepared to re-examine the drafting of any legislation, but I am strongly advised that the present wording is necessary in view of the change in the Service vote that is involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

OTHER AMENDMENTS AS TO PROXY AND POSTAL VOTING

Mr. Keith Speed: I beg to move Amendment No. 47, in page 4, line 33, at beginning insert:
(1) In section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be added subsection (f) as follows:—
(f) those who on polling day will be on holiday at an address at least 50 miles from their qualifying address;
and in section 23(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be added subsection (e) as follows:—
(e) those who on polling day will be on holiday at an address at least 50 miles from their qualifying address.
This is an important Amendment which basically seeks, in the first part, to extend the right to vote by post at Parliamentary elections to people who will be on holiday and at least 50 miles from their qualifying address on polling day. The second part extends the same right to people who vote by post when on holiday and are at least 50 miles from their qualifying address in local elections at which they are allowed to vote, since postal votes are not allowed at certain local elections.
In discussing the Bill we have been considering an expansion and extension of the franchise. Yesterday, we discussed extending it to 3 million people by reducing the voting age to 18. There are later proposals to extend hours so that people who, because of their work or for other


reasons, may be unable to vote up to 10 p.m., will have an extra hour in which to vote.
Large numbers of people who at present go on holiday are not able, in practical terms, to cast a vote either at Parliamentary or local elections. This problem has exercised Parliament in previous years and various of my hon. Friends—notably my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies), my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan Giles), my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Frederick Harris) and, most recently, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty)—have tried to introduce legislation to extend the postal vote at Parliamentary elections for people who will be on holiday. However, they attempted to go wider than this Amendment and their proposals did not contain the limitations which this one does.
I am not being unfair in paraphrasing the opposition which was forthcoming to previous Private Members' Bills from the Government as having been broadly in two categories: first, the administrative difficulties—because my hon. Friends sought to go much wider than this Amendment—and, secondly, the fact that if one is to have reforms of representation of the people from the voting point of view, they should be part of a comprehensive change rather than being piecemeal reforms.
That point was made with some strength in the debate in June, 1966 by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), when opposing the Private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East. It was also the tenor of the objections voiced by the right hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) when, as a Home Office Minister, she was replying for the Government. It has been 20 years since the last reform. It may be another 20 years before the next reform takes place. The time has come when, if this matter is to be tackled properly, it must be tackled in this Bill, I hope in the manner I have outlined.
The arguments in favour of the Amendment are overwhelming. The holiday patterns and the periods of

holiday in this country have changed substantially since the war. Today, many sections of British industry and commerce give three or four weeks' annual holiday as the rule rather than the exception. This is often achieved by employees taking a fortnight's annual holiday at one time and then an additional week or two later on at the mutual convenience of the employer and employee. I am convinced that by 1989—which is probably when we shall next be discussing this matter—six weeks' holiday will be the rule rather than the exception throughout British industry, and I hope that it will because we are already falling behind the Continent in this matter.
With this trend in mind, we must consider the period when holidays are taken. A few years ago it was standard practice for the majority of workers to have a fortnight's annual leave, and they usually took it in the first or second half of August. At that time the whole country ground to a halt. We have now moved the August Bank Holiday to the end of August or the beginning of September and increasingly firms are trying to stagger the holiday period. The result is that the summer holidays band now ranges from June to October, and during this period people may be away on holiday. That band happens to coincide, particularly in October, with one of the most popular months for holding General Elections.
The trend goes further than that. Not only do people in industry take their holidays during this band, but certain sections of the community, because of their occupations, trades or professions, are obliged to take their holidays in October or November or in May or June as well as at other times of the year which clash with the popular dates for holding General Elections. Seaside landladies, workers in the tourist industry and hotel employees, in addition to farmers once the harvest is in, often go away on holiday in October and similar out-of-season months.
There are other smaller sections of the community who find it almost impossible to take a holiday between July and September. They are, therefore, obliged to holiday either earlier or later in the year. In addition, there is another section of the community, old people, who


take their holidays outside the main band. It is usually cheaper for them to holiday earlier or later in the year and their holidays often coincide with popular times for General Elections.
There are schemes under which old people take coach trips to seaside resorts at cheaper rates, and these schemes are operative particularly early and late in the year. This enables them to take a holiday at reduced rates in hotels at the start or end of the season, a holiday which they could not otherwise afford. This is organised by old people's clubs, and so or, and is a growing and most desirable practice. But it means that these people cannot vote when a General Election is held in October.
5.0 p.m.
Also, a growing number of people are having winter sports holidays in Scotland or on the Continent, and this activity covers the months from December to March, and March is another popular month for General Elections. In addition, Parliamentary by-elections can occur at any time. Since the General Election of 1966 we have had by-elections in March, April, June, July, September, October and November. It is crystal clear that very many people find it impossible to vote because they are away on holiday during one of the months chosen for an election, and they are away largely because of circumstances of their occupation. I believe that in by-elections alone many thousands have been disfranchised.
There are problems if one extends this too far. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends who tried to introduce legislation some years ago made this mistake. If we give people on holiday postal votes without laying down any conditions we might as well cease to have people going to the polling station because all can say that they might be on holiday on a particular day and so everybody in the country could vote by post.
That is why we have specifically provided that these people must be on holiday 50 miles or more from their qualifying address. It is possible to argue about the 50 miles. The principle must be accepted that if people are within a certain distance of their polling station it is not unreasonable for them to cast their vote there. But I would point out that anyone in my constituency who

wishes to go to the seaside must travel more than 50 miles, and it is such cases that we ought to cover.
Sometimes the administrative difficulties involved are referred to. Most of the holiday makers about whom we are speaking are not those who go away on the spur of the moment. They plan their holidays some time in advance and make their bookings. They know that for a certain period they will be away. If an election occurs during that time, their holiday will genuinely have been settled beforehand and it will not be a spur of the moment decision.
Another argument concerns extra work for returning officers and their staff. I do not consider that the rights of the electorate should be subordinate to the administrative difficulties involved for civil servants, returning officers, Parliamentary parties or Members of Parliament. It seems to me that on occasions the Civil Service and the Establishment have the best of it and the people themselves have the worst of it.
I pay tribute to the way returning officers and the others involved do their work. We are already adding to the work of the staffs by agreeing to votes at 18. I believe that a large number of those who will have votes at 18 will wish to be postal voters because they will be away at university and so on. We are also to extend the voting hours by one hour. I shall be interested to hear what is said when we discuss that subject.
As I have said, we are already adding to the work of staffs in a large number of constituencies. Where one has an electorate of 100,000 or 120,000, the number of postal votes will, by definition, be greater, even without having postal votes for those who are on holiday, than in a constituency of 25,000 or 30,000. Perhaps the Governent will reply to the challenge that I put forward on Second Reading in this regard.
The additional work put on the staffs already depends upon the efficiency and enthusiasm of local electors and local party organisations. It is interesting to look at the number of postal votes published after elections. In the very safe seats there are usually only 200, 300 or 400 postal votes, while at the other end of the scale in the marginal seats there may be 3,000. No one argues that when


voters registering for postal votes for business reasons it is an added burden on the staffs. So I find the argument unacceptable.
The proposal means that in the first week when the postal votes are being registered there will be a lot of work for the staffs. This may entail obtaining additional staff to cope with it. I believe that in the marginal constituencies where traditionally there has been a high number of postal votes the extension of the franchise to persons of 18 may well require additional staff to cope with the work. Therefore, I do not regard the administrative difficulties as insoluble.
People who have to be on holiday because of the circumstances of their work should be given a reasonable chance to cast their votes at local elections, General Elections or by-elections. The onus will be on them to apply. This is not spoon-feeding; they have to take the initiative. It is wrong that the House should deny these people the exercise of that responsibility.
I believe that in some by-elections up to 5 per cent. of the electorate have been disfranchised in this way. I am convinced that at General Elections, particularly those held in October, the number of disfranchised runs into many hundreds of thousands. I find this situation completely unacceptable, and am not prepared to wait another 20 years before we can look at it again.
If the Amendment is not accepted for insertion in the Bill, when hon. Members try to raise the subject in future by means of Private Members' Bills they will be told, "It cannot be done piecemeal. You must wait for comprehensive legislation." Here we have comprehensive legislation.
I believe that the Amendment is realistic. It may cause difficulties, but it is workable. It will help people who wish to do so to exercise their voting rights when they will otherwise be prevented from doing so because of their occupation and having to be away on holiday at certain times. I commend the Amendment to the Minister, the Committee and my hon. Friends.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I remember—when having been in the House, like the hon. Member for

Meriden (Mr. Speed), for a few months—reading the Official Reports of the Administration between 1945 and 1951, looking at issues which had been raised, reading the speeches from the Government Front Bench in defence of the status quo and then the speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, putting down appropriate Ten Minute Rule Bills and typical Amendments and standing up and making the speeches that had been made by the previous Opposition and receiving answers from the then Government Front Bench in the same sort of language that I and my colleagues experienced when we sat on the other side of the House. But I have never previously heard anyone make both the speeches of the Opposition and the speeches of the Government as the hon. Member for Meriden has done.
The hon. Gentleman began by making a proposition that used to be made between 1945 and 1951 for having a vote while on holiday. Then he quoted a lot of the material which used to be put forward as to why this could not be done. It was material quoted by the previous Conservative Government as well. His last point was that anyone who could not afford a holiday at a distance of over 50 miles should not be allowed to vote by post, but that anyone who could afford a holiday over 50 miles could vote.
That is the point. Many people can afford to take holidays perhaps only 20 or 30 miles from home but, according to the hon. Gentleman, they are not to have a postal vote because they will not be far enough away.

Dame Joan Vickers: Surely people can travel 20 miles to vote if they are keen enough.

Mr. Bence: Many of them could not travel back home on polling day. Many people go on holiday with very small budgets, especially the retired.

Mr. Speed: There is no limit to the number of cars a political party may employ on polling day. Surely in both parties there would be sufficient cars available to bring back those only 20 miles or so away.

Mr. Bence: Here is another difficulty. Thousands of electors are away from home on holiday within 50 miles of home


on polling day. The hon. Gentleman said that more and more people go on holiday. He said that coach loads of old people are taken on holiday and at various times of the year. He said that the holiday period had spread. Now he says that, if people are less than 50 miles away, there are plenty of cars available to their parties to fetch them back. Is he advocating the free use of cars in Parliamentary elections, with no expense limitation?

Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman could employ 5,000 cars in his constituency, if he wished, to bring people to the poll.

Mr. Bence: There is an expenditure limitation.

Colonel Sir Harwood Harrison: Candidates cannot hire cars, but volunteer cars could do the job.

Mr. Bence: In any election there is a lirc itation of expenditure by the candidate and his agent. The point that the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir H. Harrison) made is that, if sufficient people are prepared to use their own cars to fetch constituents 40 or 50 miles back from holiday, they can do it. But there is a limit of expenditure by candidates and agents in doing that.

Sir D. Kaberry: Surely it is only illegal to hire transport to bring in electors.

Mr. Bence: A candidate cannot spend in excess of a certain sum. Volunteer cars may be used. I know that there are agents and candidates who can get that sort of volunteer assistance, but it would be a complete injustice between candidates and agents to have a system whereby people were collected from 40 or 50 miles away by car. I know areas of the country where the cars would not be forthcoming and people on holiday would not be collected. They would, therefore, be disfranchised if they were on holiday less than 50 miles away. That is a fair point.

Mr. Costain: If we made the limit 25 instead of 50 miles, would the hon. Gentleman support it?

Mr. Bence: No, because all that we should be doing would be fixing the anomaly at a different point. The anomaly would still be there.
A major administrative machine would have to be created for this purpose. Three weeks elapse between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In that time, the administrative staffs would have to find all the people on holiday. The hon. Gentleman himself pointed out that there are certain months in which the fewest number of people are on holiday, including October and March.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Speed: I pointed out that, in October, people such as seaside landladies and hoteliers and farmers must take their holidays. I would say that the fewest number of people on holiday is in November. I remind the hon. Gentleman that both March and October have been popular months for elections.

Mr. Bence: These are months when, according to the hon. Gentleman, the fewest number of people are on holiday. The hon. Gentleman said that, in October particularly, people like seaside hoteliers and others are on holiday. Therefore, during that period, fewer of the rest of the population are on holiday.

Mr. William Hamling: Spell it out in words of one syllable.

Mr. Bence: Perhaps I should use a blackboard.
Obviously, if those who cater for the holidays of the rest of the population take their own holidays in certain months, that is when the rest of the population are not on holiday. That is common sense and that is what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Speed: It is not what I said. People who go on holiday may even be having a busman's holiday. When seaside landladies and hoteliers return from holiday they are involved in renovation and redecoration of their establishments and they are working throughout the winter. But I do not only stress the point of view of such people. There are many others, in farming and in industry as a whole, who take their holidays in these months. The holiday band is widening from the traditional month of August.

Mr. Bence: There is a widening holiday band which goes beyond those particular months. That is the point I was making. If there is a widening band for holidays, we would he laying upon


administrative staffs a huge burden in having to be ready over an ever-widening band to deal with elections which might come forward. One cannot produce staff in 10 minutes.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Surely the point is that boarding-house and hotel proprietors from Blackpool, for example, do not go to Scarborough for holiday, but to Madeira or Spain. No one has yet said whether this postal service is to be extended to the four quarters of the globe. The proposal is impracticable.

Mr. Bence: It is proving so difficult to point out simple elementary truths that we have not got anywhere yet. If we try to analyse the hon. Gentleman's speech any further, it will be a long time before we get to Madeira.

Mr. Dempsey: The claim is that, if one is on holiday less than 50 miles away, cars should be sent to bring one back for the vote. We had an election during July not so long ago. Many thousands of Scottish people were on holiday on the West Coast of Scotland, only 35 miles from their constituencies. How many cars would have been necessary to bring them to the polls?

Mr. Bence: I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned that when we are dealing with this sort of distance. People who live in Glasgow, for example, go to Rothesay or the Western Isles for their holidays, only 20 or 30 miles away. They have to take a train and then cross the water. There is a sea journey involved as well. How is it proposed that they should be brought back to vote? Is it suggested that a ferry should be chartered?
I am glad, too, that the hon. Gentleman has read the speeches made by his right hon. and hon Friends in the past when they have put forward similar propositions, and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends when in Opposition in the last Administration. This case has been shattered time and time again.
It would be impossible to recruit sufficient staff to deal with the situation, even if it were limited to voters on holiday in the British Isles. But suppose they decide to go to Madeira or Bermuda. In the South of France and the West Indies at

any time of the year there are hundreds of thousands of British citizens on holiday incognito. It would be impossible to find them. It would require thousands of civil servants to search for those people all of whom would be known by the name John Smith.

Sir D. Kaberry: The hon. Gentleman then raises the delightful question of who they will be with in the South of France or the West Indies. However, he has missed the essence of the Amendment, which is designed to make certain additions to Section 12(1) of the Representation of the People Act enabling people to claim a postal vote. If any of his friends is spending a holiday incognito in the South of France and does not wish to claim, he need not.

Mr. Bence: He would not be a friend of mine. He might be a friend of the hon. Gentleman's. The hon. Member for Meriden is worried about such people being disfranchised, but they are not concerned about that. They would prefer to be incognito than enfranchised.

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If the hon. Gentleman would address the Chair, I, too, would hear what is going on in the Committee.

Mr. Bence: I am sorry, Mr. Gourlay, but we are now in areas which are always subject to a considerable amount of humour.
In the event of a sudden General Election, it would be an impossible task to recruit the necessary forces in the three weeks between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day. In that connection, the hon. Gentleman's last point was about the most absurd that I have ever heard expressed in this House. He said that it would mean increased work for the Civil Service and local authorities, which, in turn, would mean slight increases in staff. He added, however, that this Measure and other tasks imposed on various Government Departments in recent years had resulted in the recruitment of more civil servants in any event, and it would not matter about adding a few more.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman is never put in charge of a Department. I can see that he has never worked in a factory. It is probable that he has been a director—

Mr. Speed: Perhaps I might tell the hon. Gentleman that I was in industry for nine years. However, is he aware that, by the Bill, his Government are adding very substantially to the work of local authorities and civil servants? Will he vote against the extension of polling hours to 10 o'clock, and will he press, as I have, for redistribution so that, when my constituency has 160,000 voters, my electoral registration officer will not die from a heart attack?

Mr. Bence: I can answer that straight away. I am more interested in creating extra work for the administrative machine in seeing that ordinary working people car vote after they have finished work than in saying that Mr. Smith, incognito in Madeira, shall vote. I think that that is worth a little extra staff.

Mr. Hogg: If the hon. Gentleman knows that his name is Mr. Smith, how can he be incognito?

Mr. Bence: People who spend their holidays all over the world in that way generally choose the name Smith. Because of the publicity which surrounds the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they would never use the name Hogg.
I hope that my hon. Friend will not accept the Amendment. It will create even more anomalies, among them that of the line being drawn at 50 miles. It will add to the difficulties of agents, candidates and workers in elections if, when an election is declared, a person with his name on the electoral register can be anywhere in the world yet have to be notified by the registrar, and sent a polling card. Apart from anything else, such people have to be found. If someone in Bermuda or Patagonia is not notified, the law will not have been carried out.
This proposal has been made sereval times before by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The same sort of argument has been raised against it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

[Sir Barnett Janner in the Chair]

Mr. David Lane: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has drawn a flaming red herring across the Committee's deliberations and grossly exaggerated the com-

plications arising from acceptance of the Amendment. I hope that I can bring the Committee back to the main point, which is to remedy what strikes ordinary people as a plain injustice. There are strong feelings about this among voters of all parties, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware.
If I may corroborate what my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) said by a recent example from my own experience, at a by-election in the middle of September a year ago it was discovered that the number of people away on holiday and, for that reason, unable to vote totalled thousands rather than hundreds. No doubt they included Cambridge landladies anxious to fortify themselves before the arrival of undergraduates. The whole situation left a bad taste in the mouths of many of my constituents.
A number of hon. Members raised the general question of postal voting for people on holiday in the Second Reading debate. We were answered rather curtly by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said:
When people will take their holidays is unpredictable. It would be very difficult to regulate this, but it was estimated that it would mean a considerable increase in the number of people having postal votes. It would mean that an extension of time would need to be allowed to the electoral registration officer for issuing forms. At the moment, I think it is 12 days. It would need to be at least 18 days. This would affect the timing of the election. Because of that, and because of the confusion and difficulties which would arise, this has hitherto been ruled out. This is why we rule it out now."—[Official Report, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1028–9.]
Having thought about this, I find his objections quite unconvincing, in view of the wording of the Amendment.
5.30 p.m.
My hon. Friend referred to the earlier debate in June, 1966, when a Private Member's Bill was moved with the same purpose in mind, but drawn much wider than this Amendment. It was criticised then because of the extra administrative burdens this very wide proposal would create. The Government spokesman made virtually the same reply as that made by the Secretary of State for Scotland on Monday last week, quoting the figure of 12 days, as it now is, having to be lengthened to 18 days, as it would be. I


am sorry to weary the Committee with these figures of days, but it is relevant to the Amendment because we have tried to meet the objections previously raised.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will agree that, in the light of experience, Section 12 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, is too narrow. We propose a modest alteration to cover the one case which sticks out more than others as needing to be put right, because there is even more of a gap in our arrangements today than 10 or 20 years ago.
On distance, we have tried to strike a reasonable figure. I will not be distracted by the lurid points about water and air which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East raised a few minutes ago. I heard only this morning about a constituent of mine who was compelled, by his own enthusiasm and the present law, to go from Edinburgh to Cambridge to cast his vote in the by-election last year. I am grateful to him, but this should not be necessary, so we have suggested 50 miles as a reasonable figure.
Concerning the extra days which might be necessary before polling day when the lists for postal votes would have to be closed, if the Government were arguing in 1966, on the wide Amendment then proposed, that it would need 18 days, on the much narrower one that we are now proposing at most it would mean extending the 12-day period to 14 or perhaps 15 days. I am sure that this is not an administrative difficulty which ought to stand in our way if we believe the principle is right. My hon. Friends and I are open to discussion on the details of the Amendment, provided that the Government accept the principle. They may feel that 50 miles is wrong. In that case, let us discuss it. If they think that the proposal is open to abuse for any reason, let us consider what was suggested in 1966 for some arrangement for attestation in addition to the simple form which postal voters now have to fill in.
I appeal to whoever is to reply for the Government not to stick to the stock objections which have been raised on earlier occasions, but to recognise that we have made a real effort to meet them and to consider the Amendment sympathetically. I hope it will also be recognised

that we are not proposing this change in aid of one party or another, but in aid of a more healthy democracy in Britain, which should commend itself to the Government and to the Committee.

Mr. Dempsey: I just want to look—[Interruption.]—I have only made one intervention. I sat here until 11.30 last night and did not say one word, so hon. Gentlemen cannot complain about my being vociferous or bellicose.
I want to consider the difficulties in operating the system outlined in the Amendment. First, who will measure the distance? What staff will undertake the decision whether a person is 50 miles away or even 25 miles away? Consider the work involved. It is not so simple. One important factor which has been overlooked is that in this affluent society, many people, even in the West of Scotland, travel by charter flights for three-and four-week holidays to all parts of the world. My son is connected with continental airlines, and he arranges charter flights. I should like to know, from the announcement of a Parliamentary election, how we will manage to issue postal votes to people in places like San Francisco and other parts of the United States of America and have them returned in time. During the last General Election one of my agents happened to be in Australia. There was no hope of contacting him with a postal system and giving him the right to cast his vote.
I was a General Election agent for several years at Bothwell. I had a great deal to do with the organisation of elections. I know how difficult it is to organise the present postal vote without being involved in organising a postal vote to cover all corners of the world. The Amendment would have been simpler had it been tabled to instruct the Prime Minister not to call a Parliamentary election during the holiday months. That would have been much more effective and would save a lot of trouble and a great deal of cost.
We live a free and easy and comfortable life in Scotland—[Interruption.] We take the climate as it comes, whether political, economic or social, and we will take the General Election, when it comes, in the same way.
I was an election agent during the famous July 1945 General Election. To


talk about fixing a mileage perimeter and sending cars to return thousands of holiday makers within the 50 miles mentioned in the Amendment, for example, from the West Coast of Scotland to the constituencies, to vote is a physical impossibility.

Mr. Bence: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Scotland many constituencies are over 50 miles in width? Are we to fetch voters backwards and forwards to the polling stations there?

An Hon. Member: So what?

Mr. Dempsey: So what. In many areas people have to go on horseback.
It could be argued that, for example, instead of having tours to the Argentine or to San Francisco, in future we might be touring in space for several weeks at a time. In that event there would be no hope of contacting people with a postal vote. It might seem idealistic to argue that people should have the right to vote—I accept that—but if an election is called and people are not in their places of residence that is a risk that they must run.
I appreciate the sentiments expressed and the sincerity of the Amendment, but it just is not practicable. Because it is not practicable it would be unwise to burden the United Kingdom's election organisation with such an impossible task. It would be easier to tell the Prime Minister not to call a General Election during holiday months.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I wish to return to several points which have been made today. I start by saying that when I next go on holiday incognito and I want to be known as someone who will give a splendid chuckle to everybody else I shall call myself Cyril Bence. I take it that we can all start from two common assumptions—first, that we all want to make it possible for as many people as possible to record their votes as reasonably as may be, and, secondly, that we have moved into a totally new climate in respect of holidays.
A few years ago the holiday was the prerogative of a very few people. Today, mercifully, it is the prerogative of large numbers. We are told that leisure is

increasing. It we did not believe it, we had the Secretary of State for Education and Science telling us recently that it is on the increase. It therefore follows that a serious point is involved which is not met by witticisms about holidays, and so on.
The first serious point to consider is that at the relevant time a person may be holidaying abroad. I see the Under-Secretary nodding. He will know that: at present if a person has reasonable grounds for believing that he will be away from home on business he is entitled to a postal vote. Many of my constituents are airline pilots. Under the present law they are entitled to apply for and to receive a postal vote. But at any time between applying for that postal vote and their receiving it in some way, they may have gone abroad—perhaps to one of the places that have been referred to. I am sure that hon. Members would not say that that physical fact makes it unreasonable that they should receive a postal vote.
If the system can be operated quite reasonably in the case of persons on business there is no logical reason why it should not operate in the case of persons on holiday. If a person is away on business the electoral returning officer does not have to seek him out in Timbuctoo or Patagonia. Such a requirement would be totally unreasonable, and we would never impose it. But a person must record the address to which his postal vote application is to be sent.
Furthermore, there is a reasonable period of time—because a person receives his postal vote application appreciably ahead of polling day—within which he can operate. I have no doubt that some people abroad are too far away and are not able to use their postal vote. That objection, whatever other objections there may be, does not stand examination.
The case was most persuasively put by the hon. Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks). Even if we concern ourselves with General Elections alone—when the dates are restricted to certain days of the year—we know that many people will be away on holiday at the time. I agree that it is possible to pick holes in the 50-mile limit. I speak without any consultation on the matter, but I am sure that if it was purely the question of the


50 miles which caused the Under-Secretary difficulty he would find my hon. Friends and myself amenable. Furthermore, if he feels that there is something technically wrong with the drafting, he knows that in the ordinary course of events the Amendment can be withdrawn on an undertaking by the Under-Secretary to bring in another one. In principle the case is a very strong one.
We have agreed that in future persons of 18 years of age and over shall have the vote. Many of those are students. An increasing number of students now travel abroad together, in organised groups. I must declare a personal interest here, because I have only just become a member of the travel board of the National Union of Students, which is one of the greatest and most efficient travel organisations in this country—or at least it has been until my joining it. I declare that personal interest because an hon. Member opposite got in a very good commercial plug.
Many of the voters whom we have added to the registers are likely to be travelling on holiday in organised groups at the time of an election. We want them to have the widest opportunities for voting. I hope that the Under-Secretary will appreciate the genuine concern on the part of the proposers of the Amendment to make the electoral process available to the largest number of people, and that they have accepted a certain limitation because they wanted to make the Amendment a practical one.
Since the holiday habit is widely spread in these days I very much doubt that this Amendment would stand to the advantage of one party or the other, although that would have been the case not many years ago. Therefore, there are grounds for its serious examination.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Brian Walden: I rise only to make one point. I would not have done so had I not felt that it was a point of substance which is seldom mentioned in such a discussion as this. We used to have a system of voting in which local authorities were responsible for getting voters' names on to the registers. Electors were sent forms to fill in and if a local authority had reason to believe that in a certain area or dis-

trict a substantial number of eligible voters had not returned their forms it had a duty to do something about it and to get those people on to the register.
The Americans have always had a very different system, of voting by claim, in which a would-be voter goes to the town hall and registers himself. He does not receive a vote unless he does that. The hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) is right in saying that there is nothing peculiar, unusual or strange in the suggestion contained in the Amendment. It is in line with the provisions of Clause 6. I have long had grave doubts about the principle enshrined in that Clause, because I believe that we should not have an absurd system in which a local authority has to trace people all over the country.
That would happen if we had a system of vote by claim. If people wanted to vote they would register a claim to exercise their vote. From the point of view of the definition laid down by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) there is nothing at all against it. The aim is to get as many people as possible to the polls. An individual citizen, as with the postal voting system, has every right to claim a vote. But we must not forget what we are doing when we tack on the American claim system to the British system, under which a local authority gets people on to the register, thus biasing the socio-economic content of the register as a whole. In the United States, those who are not registered to vote, in every major state, are overwhelmingly the poorer section.

Mr. Cranley Onslow: Does the hon. Gentleman not see some flaw in the fact that one cannot exercise one's right to claim unless one is already on the register?

Mr. Walden: This is a valid point and I was coming to it. I was about to say that it would be unjust to suggest either that the hon. Member for Meriden is trying to institute a different claim system from that which we already have, or that he is not dealing only with those already on the general register, but the principle is the same. What will happen if this is not done is that everyone who goes on holiday outside the 50-mile limit will not get the vote. If it is done, there will be a right of claim and in any


thousand cases no one here has any doubt as to which way the bias will be. It is unfortunate that we, like most countries, haw a system whereby the better off tend to vote with the party opposite, and the reverse is true of the poorer section——

Mr. Nigel Birch: Not next time.

Mr. Walden: It would help my argument if that were so, but I am not making a party point.
I know that the system which the hon. Member for Meriden suggests is attractive, but we should not have such a system, even if it is convenient for individuals, even if it is a right which is already exercised in a series of categories. There should not be a system under which people must claim a vote. This has always been my objection to postal votes. Admittedly, it may be administratively difficult to do anything about it, but in principle it is wrong. It biases the socioeconomic content of the postal vote, as everyone who has fought an election knows.
I am glad to have been able to speak on the Amendment, not because I think that it is wrong or because I think that the hon. Member has not put it forward reasonably, or because it has no merits. I simply wanted to call attention to the principle of claim voting. I do not like it and I do not want it extended.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) needs some answers to his argument. which was logical enough but had fundamental weaknesses. But I also want to support the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) who has said what many ordinary people think is right, despite what was said earlier, and particularly despite what the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) said. In fact, the principle of the Amendment, whatever the phrasing and whatever the distance involved, is a good principle. En other words, we are trying to ensure that there is minimum inconvenience and expense involved in voting. That is why we already put polling stations in out of the way places. That is why, although my constituency is the largest of all—probably 100 miles across

—polling stations are put there in out of the way places, so that people can vote without expense.
Our holidays are increasingly determined by the kind of jobs we do. I see no distinction in logic between saying, "You are a sailor and therefore are entitled to a postal vote," and saying, "You are a miner and, because of the way your mine operates, your holidays will be within a specific period, so you will go away, because you deserve your holiday as much as anyone, and will get a vote for the election or by-election which falls in that period." What is the distinction between giving a vote for certain occupations—long-distance lorry drivers, for example—because of the movements which their jobs demand, and giving it to people who have gone away because that is the only time that they can go?

Mr. Walden: But they would not be given a vote: they would have to claim that vote. That is the trouble.

Mr. Johnston: I will return to that point in a moment. The whole burden of the series of conservative speeches which we have heard from hon. Members opposite was that this was very difficult indeed. I was astounded that two successive Labour speakers should say that this would mean some increase in the Civil Service. That was an astounding argument from members of a party which spends most of its time doing just that.
Already, this is done in 34 states of the the U.S.A. and it is done in Australia and it can be done here: it is possible.
There were three basic arguments. The first was that the local authorities would be overburdened, that they might take up to 18 days because of this great avalanche of postal votes. This is a considerable exaggeration, and I have yet to hear any specific evidence of the number of votes involved in each kind of constituency and the amount of extra time which it would take to open the extra envelopes and count them. It is true that there is no capacity to check. This is probably a weakness of the argument. One cannot prove whether a man is going to Holland, Madeira or Blackpool——

Sir D. Kaberry: But would not the hon. Member agree that, to get a postal vote,


the elector would have to make a declaration on a form, and would be liable to some penalties if he made an incorrect statement?

Mr. Johnston: I accept the point, and was about to say that, if the elector said that he was going to stay, say, in No. 5, Hogg Mansions, Blackpool, the voting form would be sent there; if he were not there, that would be unfortunate. The basic principle is that one cannot prove that one is going, for instance, to Holland.

Mr. Speed: This is a point, but let us not overstress it, since, at present, a commercial traveller or someone who is away on holiday because of his business can claim a business vote. This is a very narrow dividing line. After all, we must trust people. Most are not dishonest and the postal vote will go to the place involved. Some hon. Members seem to have a very low opinion of the electorate, but I am inclined to trust them.

Mr. Johnston: I accept the hon. Member's argument. I do not think that the normal elector would go to the trouble of getting a postal vote for simple amusement. The number of people who go to the trouble of getting postal votes already, and who are entitled to them, are on the register, and this depends on the degree of political activity in any constituency. The party representatives go around looking for these people and there is little impetus from the people themselves. Although there is little capacity to claim, and although, if this were extended, it might potentially be wide, I do not think that, practically—and that is the argument, the practical argument, which hon. Members opposite have used—any number of people would do it just for the sake of it.
6.0 p.m.
I would leave out of account the argument whether the distance should be 50, 45 or 43 miles; that is not important. I think that the Government Front Bench would either accept or reject the principle. The question of the arbitrary line which would be drawn is not something about which people would die in the last ditch.
The hon. Member for All Saints made the point about this being what he called

socio-geographic—a new and vogue word——

Mr. Walden: Socio-economic. Mr. Johnston: I am sorry—

Mr. Hogg: Specially designed for Conservative voters.

Mr. Johnston: The hon. Member has in mind Conservative voters in social and economic terms. He said, reasonably speaking, that when a vote is obtained only on claim, this has a certain bias towards people who are better off, more intelligent or something. I am not sure whether the hon. Member was indicating to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) that within the socio-economic group to which he referred people are necessarily more intelligent. I would not have thought so.

Mr. Hogg: He meant it but he did not say it.

Mr. Johnston: One admits that this is a weakness of any postal system. The question then becomes, which of two choices do we make? Do we try in some way to make it possible for people to vote who otherwise will not be able to vote or do we say that merely because of a hypothetical bias—this bias exists in voting itself; we all know what the Labour Party think about wet days. They say, "Oh, they will stay at home and watch television"? This applies to all participation in public activity generally.
I do not see that the hon. Member for All Saints has any justification in singling out one area and separating it from all the rest. That is not necessarily logical. In the end, however, to pursue his argument, if one were to accept it, one has to make a choice.
Should we try to provide for the increasing numbers of people—the hon. Member for Meriden was right, and so was the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee)—who have to go on holiday at particular times, not because of choice, but because of the pattern of their work and staggered holidays. It is not, therefore, simply a question of having a General Election in December. I would not like that to happen in Inverness. [Interruption.] There are indications that General Elections should be held outside the holiday period.
We have to make a choice. Do we try to provide for the increasing numbers of people who have to go on holiday at a particular time, or do we not? On balance, I very much think that we do, despite even the acceptance of the argument put by the hon. Member for All Saints.

Mr. Hamling: I have great sympathy with the Amendment. I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not present to hear these comments. I do not know whether in due course he will cast his vole by proxy.
This matter was discussed by Mr. Speaker's Conference when I was on it and Mr. Speaker's Conference came down against it. I do not use that as an argument why the House of Commons should also come down against it, because as a model of consistency I intend to take the line that if Mr. Speaker's Conference is against it, I am for it; and if Mr. Speaker's Conference is for it, I am against it. I will not repeat that for the benefit of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who has now returned, beyond saying that I am not using Mr. Speaker's Conference as an argument in this case.
I have great sympathy with the Amendment because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), I do not take the view that we should accept a situation that people are denied the opportunity to vote because they are sick, in hospital, at work or for many other reasons. I do not share that view. I think that others of my right hon. and hon. Friends have an inferiority complex about postal voting because their constituencies cannot get the postal vote out. My view is that in West Woolwich we can, and in my constituency at the last election, and certainly the election in 1964, we had a majority on the postal vote. That, however, is not relevant to the argument.
I certainly acquit my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints of any party bias in this matter. I know my hon. Friend a lot better than the Opposition do. If there is any hon. Member on this side who could be described as being objective in this matter, it is my hon. Friend. I have no doubt about this. The right hon. and learned Member for St.

Marylebone is far too suspicious of motives in this debate. [An Hon. Member: "He is a lawyer."] That is not a reason. Some lawyers are quite reasonable.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to take a subjective view of this matter. I have great sympathy with the Amendment because I take the view that, where we can, we should let people have the opportunity of voting if they can. Having looked at the Amendment and listened to some of the earlier speeches, I think that one of the troubles with the Amendment is that it is open to a great deal of abuse. If the Amendment means what it says when it specifies 50 miles, 49 miles or 48 miles will be out. In my view, somebody who is on holiday 40 miles away is as entitled to vote by post as anyone who is on holiday over 50 miles away.
Where I live in South-East London is not very far from Southend or Herne Bay. A great many people could be on holiday at Herne Bay who certainly would not be covered by the Amendment but who might find it extremely difficult to come back on polling day. It is not only people who go away on holiday who would be penalised in this way. I think also of day trippers. One should not look down one's nose at day trippers.
When planning their holidays, a great many people—I think particularly of railwaymen's families—use privilege tickets as the basis of their family holiday to travel about from place to place and use their home as their base. These people would be excluded by the Amendment. These are serious anomalies. One of the dangers is that by seeking to end what one can consider to be an anomaly, one can create many more anomalies. People might have a legitimate grievance and say, "Parliament is giving the right to vote in this way to one group of people and not to us. This is a grave injustice."

Sir D. Kaberry: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that there should not be a mileage limitation and that anybody who is on holiday should be able to claim this vote?

Mr. Hamling: I am merely pointing out how difficult it is to find a reasonable method of administering votes of this kind for holidaymakers.

Sir D. Kaberry: With or without a mileage limitation?

Mr. Hamling: Even if there were no such limitation, one would have to certify the fact. "I am on holiday," one could say, but who would prove that he was not at the dog track on that day? Would a visit to a race meeting constitute a holiday?

Mr. Speed: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of how a businessman at present certifies that he is away on business?

Mr. Hamling: Returning officers are hot on this. I know the returning officer for my borough extremely well and I am aware of the basis on which he regularly throws out claims for postal votes. The hon. Gentleman knows the position, too, as does the returning officer for his constituency. Claims for this purpose made by business people are normally based on the fact that they are away on business regularly. No businessman would claim that he should have this right merely because he is away for one day out of 365. A fortnight's holiday once a year is no comparison.
There are insuperable administrative difficulties involved in achieving a reasonable and desirable reform of this kind, and, however admirable the Amendment might be, I believe that it would prove unworkable on administrative grounds.

Mr. Frederic Harris: The hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a serious speech on this important subject, which is more than can be said of the remarks of most of his hon. Friends, who made a joke of the whole affair. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) invariably gets himself into a tangle and produces as many red herrings as he can. He certainly did that today, followed by a Punch and Judy performance between himself and some of his hon. Friends.
This is a serious subject and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), who is to be congratulated on the way in which he moved the Amendment, has probably had the most recent experience of handling postal votes in connection with the by-election which brought him here. As he pointed out, over the years many of my hon. Friends and I have tried hard to persuade the Govern-

ment to accept that if people are away on holiday they should be as entitled to a postal vote just like people who are away on business. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) pointed out the anomaly of allowing postal votes to people who are absent for business reasons but forbidding them to people who are on holiday.
I confess to not being happy about the reference to 50 miles in the Amendment, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend has tried to overcome the argument which has been adduced against this sort of proposal in the past and which the hon. Member for Woolwich, West highlighted. However, if 50 miles is not an acceptable distance, the Government could make another suggestion to achieve the same object and ensure that the facility of a postal vote is not easily abused.
6.15 p.m.
The Minister is aware—indeed, I believe that he nodded assent when this point was made earlier—that a satisfactory answer could be found. After previous debates on this subject I have spoken to Ministers and they have told me privately that the problem could be solved if it were faced up to. It must be, for many thousands of citizens should not be prohibited from the votes to which they are entitled.
Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, I have found in previous elections in my part of the world that Labour Party organisers have thought that we in the Conservative Party are better able to organise postal voters. I appreciate their reasoning hut, whatever the facts may be, people should not be prevented from voting.
We hope for a serious response from the Minister on this occasion. The time must come when the law in this respect is changed, particularly in view of the trend for holidays to be spread over the year. This will happen increasingly in future, and the problem will therefore become greater. It will particularly apply when youngsters are able to vote from the age of 18. I, therefore, beg the Minister to treat the Amendment with seriousness and at last try to find an answer to this problem.

Mr. Costain: The Amendment, which was moved brilliantly by my hon. Friend


the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed), has been received with an extraordinary amount of chit-chat from hon. Gentlemen opposite. One cannot gather from their remarks whether they oppose it or support in The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) suggested that there would be convoys of charabancs travelling the length and breadth of the country carrying hordes of people wishing to cast postal votes. He then argued in the opposite direction, and in the end I was not sure precisely what he meant.
I represent the coastal resort of Folkestone and this Amendment has a strong bearing on my constituents. One need only analyse the percentage of votes cast at General Elections in the last 25 years to appreciate that when one takes place in the autumn, and particularly in October, as is frequently the case, the number of voters absent is greater in an area like mine. There is a limited period in the year when those employed in the local hotels, shops and so on are able to take their holidays. October is one of the most convenient months for my constituents to holiday; at the end of the holiday season yet before the Christmas season.
It is wrong that constituents like mine should be prevented from voting. The only argument adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite against the Amendment appears to have been that it would be difficult to organise postal votes in this way. I thought that they were about to suggest that we should not have any more General Elections because they are difficult to organise. That would suit them very well. It was noteworthy that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), whose postal voting arrangements are obviously better organised in his constituency, did not oppose the Amendment with the same enthusiasm as some of his hon. Friends.
I suggest that the trouble in the past has been that hon. Members opposite have felt that the Conservative supporters were better able to deal with postal votes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) said that, but I think that he is doing his supporters a disservice, because we do not agree that they are all as unintelligent as all that——

Mr. Walden: I know the hon. Member well and I am quite sure that he would not like to misrepresent me. I am not talking about intelligence. It is the fact that the less well educated, manual section of the population always has far more difficulty with forms—filling them in, disposing of them and collecting them—and they are also more difficult to find at the appropriate times. It is simply that.

Mr. Costain: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's argument carries much weight: has he ever had a Littlewood's coupon?
This is a serious debate. We are discussing how, for the sake of democracy, we can give all our electors an opportunity to vote with the minimum of inconvenience. Those of us who represent coastal resorts do not think—and this has happened in my own experience—that our electors ought to feel it their duty to give up a holiday in order to vote, but that is what is happening.
Hon. Members opposite want to make a party issue of this, but I suggest that it is the Conservative supporters who are better able to alter the dates of their holidays with regard to the date of a General Election than their own supporters, who are probably going away because the trade is slack. It is an illusion for hon. Members opposite to say that this is a party matter, and that therefore they should not vote for the Amendment. They forget that the number of people taking holidays every year is increasing, and the longer this matter is left in its present stupid state the longer we will have people disfranchised, and the more difficult it will be to get an election which truly represents the feeling of the nation. That is what democracy is about, and what it should be about.
The question should not be: is it more difficult? I believe that if it is now impossible we should so organise things as to make it possible. If hon. Members are prepared to accept polls of 65 per cent. and 75 per cent. as indicating the feeling of the nation, then let things go on as they are, but my belief is that unless we get 90 per cent. of the people voting we do not get a true, democratic picture.
In Australia voting is compulsory, and if it were compulsory here there would be


an even better argument. The hon. Member for All Saints said that people have to claim a vote. If people have to claim the vote because they have gone away, they have gone away for a purpose, so it is necessary in the nature of things that they have to go through some process, and to do that is not too difficult.
This is a matter of real principle to those representing seaside resorts and other holiday areas. It is essential in the name of democracy that we should allow the people to vote, and I am delighted to find the Liberal Party here is fully in agreement with this Amendment. It is only those who do not want the real truth to come to the nation that are against it.

Mr. Onslow: I want to echo the expressions of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain). He is glad, as I am, that this has now become a serious debate, because the earlier knockabout attitude adopted by some hon. Members opposite was quite deplorable.
To put things in perhaps the most dramatic way, an elector away from his constituency on holiday at the time of an election is at present obliged to return home if he wishes to vote. I believe this journey to be wholly unnecessary. How many of those who make that journey expose themselves to the risk of death or serious injury as a result? That is a factor we have to take into account. We know that many road casualties are wholly unnecessary, and this should be made a wholly unnecessary journey.
I hope that the Minister will not tell us that it would be impossible to do as the Amendment suggests. He may tell us that it is difficult to operate such a scheme—I do not know that he knows necessarily how difficult—but I hope that he will not exaggerate the difficulties, as some of his hon. Friends undoubtedly have. The average number of extra postal votes in an average constituency is very unlikely to run into four figures, and that would represent, I suggest, an increase of about 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. on the number of postal votes already dealt with. I doubt whether that would mean a very large increase in the number of man hours involved. This is not really a burdensome thing and, in any case, we

know that most of the work is done by the parties and not by the returning officer's staff.
When all the prepared positions of the Home Office have been stormed and all its arguments exposed as invalid, there are only two ultimate grounds on which such an Amendment as this can be opposed. The first is a feeling of guilt; a feeling that there is something wrong in going away on holiday at election time; that if there is an election one ought not to go on holiday, and that if one does one ought to pay a penalty for one's presumption or affluence. What a wholly ludicrous nineteenth century notion that is. I hope that the Minister will not seek refuge in it. In my constituency I have many airline pilots. Is it to be said that these men, who have an opportunity by reason of their profession of a very favourable concessionary rate to take their families overseas on holiday, should forgo that opportunity because they would then be unable to vote? This can be a very considerable penalty in some cases, and it is an aspect that ought not to be Lightly dismissed.
The other ground is sheer fear. It is distrust of the electorate in some degree. It is a political fear that if we advantage people who are going on holiday they may not vote for us. There may be something to be said for the view that people who go to Madeira for their holiday have more sense than to vote for this Government and some of its present financial wizards. Never mind, this Chancellor of the Exchequer will in due course, disappear and the time may even come when some of the people going to Madeira will be perfectly prepared to vote for the Labour Party. Meanwhile fear is not a respectable argument for opposing the Amendment.
Nor is there much in the argument of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), who says that because this proposal would give a number of people a right to claim and because some with the right would not use it, none should have it. That is a very sterile and unprogressive argument, as he probably will understand, because we might as well say that because some people on the register do not vote—and one main reason there is that they are dead—none of the people on the register should have


the vote. That is the result if we extend the same principle to its logical extremity.

[Mr. Sydney Irving in the Chair]

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Walden: That is not my point at all. In this country even today, and certainly in other countries, those who for one reason or another do not have a vote because they are not on the register come overwhelmingly from one social class. If elections are to be an attempt to find the wishes of the majority, one must take account of how the system is already biased and not bias it further in that direction.

Mr. Onslow: We might have to have the blackboard of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) before us if we were to go into detail. That would be out of order.
I turn to the final element of fear in this equation. It is the fear that if the postal vote system were extended there would be more opportunity for people to make fraudulent use of it. This may be technically so. But, I am not averse to the argument that anyone ought to be entitled to vote by post. I do not see any reason to object to that, because I do not believe that people would sell their votes, or that there would be traffic in the franchise or large scale bribery or impersonation. I am prepared to proceed on the assumption that the electorate is mainly honest. As things stand at the moment there may be electors who make declarations which are not necessarily wholly honest, but it really is unnecessary to put any electors in this position. There can be no objection in principle to passing this Amendment.

Dame Joan Vickers: It is said that in my constituency we have more experience of postal voting than in other constituencies. The socio-economic theory of the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden) falls down altogether there, because the people in my constituency probably earn a quarter of tie amount in wages that his constituents do. My constituents are made up mostly of weekly wage-earners.

Mr. Walden: The hon. Lady is reading into what I said that this argument

is about Labour and Tory. I was simply talking about having a given social group excluded, or largely excluded, from those who get on to the register. This may not apply to a particular party, but the fact remains that those against whom the system is biased come from the poorer income groups.

Dame Joan Vickers: The hon. Member defeats his own argument. Voters in my constituency are largely from the poorer income groups and the average wages are £11 per week. We have at least 60,000 voting and they are able to fill in forms as well as anyone else can. The hon. Member is underestimating the average intelligence of those in the lower income groups.

Mr. Simon Mahon: Has the hon. Lady had the interesting job of canvassing in a major slum clearance area? It is deplorable to find the overwhelming number of people in such an area who for some reason or other cannot get on the register. This is out of all proportion in a major industrial town.

Dame Joan Vickers: I have stood for election in Poplar. I should not have thought that, particularly in 1945, any place had worse slums than Poplar, but I managed to find plenty of people in the electorate.
I cannot see why in this computer age we cannot arrange things more easily. How is it that overseas Americans can do this? I should like to know who is against this proposal. I believe the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) voted yesterday against the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Perhaps he will do the same today as he is a man of independent mind. I understand that the A.M.C. is objecting to the proposal, but why should we take its objections so seriously? In 1945, when there were many Service votes, we did not have the results declared on the same night but waited three weeks for those votes. There is no need to count all the votes on the election day; they could be counted the day after.
In the West Country there are problems for hoteliers and boarding-house keepers who have to take their holidays after the season. There are also problems of farmers who cannot go away until the harvest is over. They cannot fix their dates for


holidays some time ahead. In a Service town, if we have these people on the register, directly nominations are closed one can send out election addresses to those who are overseas. There is no reason why that should not be done for all people who will be away on election day. I cannot see difficulty over that. If it can be done for those who are in Singapore, Gibraltar, Bahrain and so on and their votes are collected three weeks after the election day, it could be done for other people.
Canvassers have to go to search out people who are blind or disabled and help them to fill in forms, and they have to get a doctor to sign a certificate. Those with whom the Amendment is concerned are not asking that to be done because they are able-bodied and all they need do is to say that they will be away from home. I do not believe my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) is absolutely wedded to the 50 miles limit. These people would be able to go to the office of the local organisation of the Socialist or Conservative Parties. They would not have to go through the registration officer. A great deal of heavy weather is being made over this proposal. I suggest that the Minister should think again and see if we cannot find a way of giving these people their just rights.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I were to give the Government's view on this Amendment. I should have expected that on a subject on which there are 629 other experts we might have had a broader discussion.
I found the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints, (Mr. Walden) one of great interest. I believe that all the research that has been done shows that there is this socioeconomic base to the application for the variety of different types of postal and proxy voting. I did not think my hon. Friend was making any judgment on the intelligence of anyone. Everyone has given his personal experience on this matter, so I am about to do so. What I have found over the years is that, in regard to the postal vote which is done rather differently from normal voting by being registered, the work done by the registration officer is not so much a

question of intelligence and of knowing how to fill in a form but of knowledge of the facilities available.
Anyone who has been a postal vote officer will know of the knowledge needed about illness, incapacity, blindness, a journey by air or sea, or being a member of Her Majesty's Forces or the Auxiliary Forces. My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints raised an interesting point about the way in which the vote is expressed in this country and pointed out that getting people on to the postal vote register comprises a voluntary effort. People working on the system will, for example, go round to the surgeries. When I stood for election in a marginal constituency my garage was full of postal votes for registration. There were 2,500, one of the largest postal votes in the country, and this was because of the effort of one person who spent his whole time in getting those postal votes.
The percentage figures in the recent presidential elections in America showed that 68 per cent. of the population voted whereas in this country over 70 per cent. voted and in many marginal constituencies 85 per cent. voted. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) and others quite rightly said that we are trying to get as many people to the poll as possible. In Australia voting is compulsory, and in Iron Curtain countries voting is done in a different way. We in this country are remarkably successful in getting such large numbers of people to the poll.

Mr. Peter Mahon: Although we are remarkably successful in this country, will not my hon. Friend concede that there is a natural antipathy against the postal vote and that people who have voted in the normal way all their lives are very reluctant to use the postal vote when they become ill or infirm, and that they need strong persuasion to make them do so?

Mr. Rees: We are all expressing our own personal experiences of various elections. Certainly I have detected something like that among the older generation—I am not now referring to those of any one political persuasion. There is a sense among older people that they prefer to go to the poll and put a cross on a bit of paper. This is the generation which lived through the extension of the franchise and perhaps it therefore feels more


strongly about having the vote than do those people who have been born to expect it and who accept it.

Mr. Onslow: Surely there is a much simpler explanation, which is that in a way the admission of physical inability to reach the polling station is an unpleasant admission for an old person to have to make.

Mr. Rees: That is perfectly true. I was not using that in any sense as the most important argument. I was simply agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Peter Mahon) that older people prefer to go to the poll under their own steam.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide absent voting facilities at Parliamentary and local government elections for people on holiday. I was interested in the views of the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe and I asked one of my hon. Friends to take the opportunity to look at the percentage poll in the hon. Gentleman's constituency over the years, because I take his point that October is a bad month when so many people are away and in which the percentage poll should therefore be the lowest.

Mr. Costain: If the hon. Gentleman is about to draw an analogy from the last election, let me say that that is not a viable argument. There were other reasons for the size of the poll on that occasion.

Mr. Rees: There may have been other reasons. I have gone back further than tha:. In March, 1966, the poll was 70·6 per cent.; in October, 1964, 71 per cent.; in October, 1959, there was the highest percentage poll in recent years, 76 per cent.; and in May, 1955, it was 73 per cent. I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument about things shutting down in a seaside constituency in October, but those figures show that there are many factors as well as postal voting for people going on holiday to take into account.

Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman is paying me a very subtle compliment; 1959 was the first year I stood.

Mr. Rees: The poll was the lowest last time, which may mean that people get used to things.

Mr. Speed: Those figures reinforce my point, because all the percentage figures in Folkestone, a seaside town with a Member of Parliament as forth-right as my hon. Friend, are nevertheless below the national average.

Mr. Rees: The whole point of this part of my speech is simply to point out that there are many factors which account for the size of a poll, not merely giving prospective holidaymakers the right to have a postal vote.
The restriction in the Amendment that the voter must be on holiday at least 50 miles from his home is obviously designed to keep the privilege within bounds. It makes little difference to the general consideration of the matter, although I understand the argument of many of my hon. Friends that it would raise many technical difficulties. I would be the last to argue that if one had a Clause defined in certain ways, one could not get over these difficulties in some way. It might be extremely difficult to decide whether it should be 50, or 49, or 48 miles, or whatever it should be, but the burden of my argument does not rest on that difficulty. We had some interesting talk about Madeira and the travelling incognito and I am glad that it was not related to Clause 2, when it would have given rise to a most interesting discussion.
6.45 p.m.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said, absent voting facilities for electors absent from their homes on polling day were considered by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I may do no more than say that no recommendation came from the conference to alter the present law, for as my hon. Friend said there would be a certain inconsistency if I said more than that about it. The present law limits the granting of absent voting facilities in Parliamentary and local government elections to the people who are listed in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, and all hon. Members will know the two different sections for local and national elections.
In Clauses 5 and 6 minor extensions to these categories are made in accordance with Mr. Speaker's Conference. We have now included wives accompanying husbands away on business, a subject on which we touched when we dealt with the


problem of merchant seamen, although we were then concerned with a Clause which dealt with registration. Also included are persons who have moved from one constituency to another in the same borough, which is also a marginal extension of those entitled to obtain a postal vote.
To make a further extension to those on holiday would virtually mean extending absent voting facilities to all persons who were unlikely for any reason to be able to attend the polling station. There would be little equity in giving absent voting facilities to people on holiday but not to people temporarily away from home for other equally good reasons. I agree that it would be possible to have another Amendment to cover them, too, but once one opens the gates in this way, why should not somebody else have the opportunity to have a postal vote? Much as I appreciate the problem, there is no doubt that being on holiday is not as good a reason for having a postal vote as those which I have already listed, such as employment or occupation. For instance, a lorry driver may be away from home on polling day and a lorry driver drives a lorry not for a fortnight, but for 50 weeks a year.
While I appreciate the difficulty involved in certain areas, general elections and local government elections are usually—and I accept that I can make this no more than a marginal argument—held in periods outside major holiday times.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Should it not be the task of Parliament to do its utmost to enable every person to be in a position to vote?

Mr. Rees: I agree. But what I am arguing is that it the Amendment were conceded, the extension would go on and on and postal voting would become far more typical. My hon. Friend the Member for All Saints mentioned the philosophical considerations. The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Russell Johnson) said that Australia had such a system, but Australia also has compulsory voting and the two go together. I agree that other things are involved, but if there is compulsory voting, obviously arrangements must be made for well nigh every-

body who is away from home to have a postal vote.
An extension of facilities for absent voting to people on holiday would virtually open the door for absent voting by anyone at all. All that the person concerned would need to say is that he was likely to be away from home on the day of the poll, and the registration officer would have no option but to accept the application. I shall return to this technical point later. The registration officer would not have the time to check the statement just before an election. Even if he had, how could he question a statement about the likelihood of a person's whereabouts at a future date? All of us in this Committee have dealt with postal voting and know that the variety of R.P.A. forms involved require a signature. What are we to have—the signature of the landlady that somebody has booked? There are problems which would arise by providing absent voting facilities in circumstances other than illness and occupations, to cover those on holiday.

Mr. Onslow: Does not the hon. Gentleman concede that there is nothing particularly terrible about everybody having the right to a postal vote, and an argument to which he has not yet responded is that, if they did, it might lead to a great deal of simplification and probably a great deal less bureaucracy and form-filling?

Mr. Rees: The essence of my argument so far, without touching on the technical point, is that there should be a limit on the amount of absent voting which takes place. Once it is conceded that a large number would be involved if there were any extension, the practical difficulties of a wide extension of postal voting turn mainly on the timetable for elections.
I am advised that at present just over 2 per cent. of the total vote is cast by post. The last day for considering applications for absent voting facilities is 12 days before polling day. This is laid down in the Representation of the People Regulations. It could well be that this period would not be sufficient to enable registration officers and returning officers to cope with the increased volume of absent voting which might be expected as a result of any wide extension of


absent voting facilities. It is understood that these officers throughout the country have expressed the view that, in the past, the period of 12 days has been found to gave just sufficient time to handle the number of postal votes.
The work involved consists primarily in checking applications against the register, deciding whether they may be allowed and informing the electors; ascertaining that the proxies nominated are willing to act; marking the ordinary registers to show who may not vote in person; preparing the special lists—we all know what they consist of—of postal voters, proxy voters and postal proxy voters. Lists of postal voters and postal proxy voters are required by returning officers before they can despatch postal ballot papers and by the party agents so that they may send election matter to absent voters.
The general view of representative registration and returning officers—I believe that it should be taken into account—is that, if as a result of an extension of absent voting the number of postal votes were to increase from the existing figure of about 2 per cent. to, say, 5 per cent.—I believe that this is a conservative estimate of the increase that might be involved——

Sir D. Kaberry: Surely all these claims are made on forms which are subject either to the Perjury Act or to some other sanction? There would be some penalty if people made wrong claims.

Mr. Rees: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point I am making here is that, whether they are perjured or otherwise, an increase in the figure to 5 per cent. as a result of including those on holiday would put a great burden on returning officers in doing the work which they have to do.
I am also advised that there would be a real risk of breakdown in the election machinery, unless the period between the last day for the receipt of applications and polling day were to be extended to at least 18 days instead of 12 days. I do not say that this comes down from Mount Sinai. I simply say that this is what I have been advised by those who have been doing this for a long time.

Mr. Speed: If the hon. Gentleman were again to look at The Times guide, he

would find that, for example, in the constituencies of Eastleigh and Buckingham the number of postal votes returned in 1964 and 1966 was roughly 5 per cent. of the total electorate.

Mr. Rees: That is no doubt true. The hon. Gentleman will know something about the nature of the constituencies of Eastleigh and Buckingham. There is a very good reason for its being 5 per cent. in those two places.

Mr. Speed: But the returning officers have not died.

Mr. Rees: I am not worried about the returning officers dying. I am simply saying that if it were done in general there would be a need to extend the period over 18 days. This would necessitate an extension of the timetable for parliamentary elections, and polling day might need to be as much as 23 days after the issue of the writ, instead of 17 days as at present.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The hon. Gentleman is using a whole lot of hypothetical phrases, such as, "it might be", "it is possible that", and "the general view is this". Are there any surveys or any practical evidence of any kind to indicate what proportionate increase might take place if this happened?

Mr. Rees: All the evidence that I gave, in so far as it is hypothetical—it must be so—has come, as I understand it, from discussing the matter with returning officers in different parts of the country. Specific practical problems would undoubtedly arise. I am not denying that they could be overcome locally by taking on more people at election times, and so on. However, there is a practical problem. I say no more than that.

Mr. Lane: As I recollect it, the hon. Gentleman is using almost exactly the same phraseology and quoting the same number of days as was used in a similar debate in 1966 on a Bill designed to open the door very much wider than the Amendment would. Those former arguments cannot possibly apply to the far more modest proposal contained in the Amendment.

Mr. Rees: The disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and myself must be on the word "modest" in relation to the number of people on holiday who would


be able to register as absent voters. There are practical problems involved in allowing holidaymakers to have postal votes. The major argument involved is a question of principle. The various documents issued under the 1949 Act and the Regulations made under that Act, just as Regulations will have to be made under this Bill when enacted, contain references to employment or occupation, illness, incapacity or blindness, journey by air or sea, removals, down to a parliamentary candidate and wife/husband, to indicate people allowed a postal or a proxy vote. There is an extension, which I mentioned earlier, to cover a move inside a borough. This was not a large extension. It has gone on over the years since 1945.
The question that the Committee must answer is: is the amount of postal voting in our electoral system to go any further than it is now, where we look after the man who works away, where we look after the man or woman who is ill, or incapacitated, or blind, and where we look after cases of removal? This is what it is so far. The Amendment would allow an extension for those on holiday. The advice I give to the Committee is that the Amendment should be rejected.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Hogg: I thought it right to reserve whatever thoughts I had until I had heard the Minister. I do not pretend that I did not start with a bias in favour of my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). I should not be human if I did not start with a bias in favour of my hon. Friend. However, I thought it fair to wait until I had heard the Government's case.
Having heard it, I am bound to say that my bias in favour of my hon. Friend becomes a conviction that he is right. Nothing was more startling, if I may be forgiven for saying so, than the stark contradiction between the arguments which were advanced against the Amendment from below the Gangway and those against the Amendment to which we have just listened. The only common feature was that these inconsistent arguments were against the Amendment.
I was accused by the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) of being unduly suspicious. I have no need to be suspicious of motives in this case because

they were starkly declared below the Gangway. I accept that hon. Members mean what they say. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) made no bones about it He wants to keep off the register the man who can afford a holiday in Madeira. He wants to keep his own supporters on it. This is stark political discrimination. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Walden), who purported to put forward an intellectual argument, was the most biased of them all, because he declared a bias in favour of class discrimination. Both are contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights to which this country is a signatory. That does not worry them. As long as they can keep off the register those who are relatively well off, that is a good thing. That is what the hon. Member for All Saints said, in so many terms.

Mr. Walden: No man of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's intellectual brilliance can possibly misunderstand what I was saying.

Mr. Hogg: I did not misunderstand it.

Mr. Walden: What I am saying, and what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is unable to deny, is that the overwhelming majority of people in this and other Western countries who are not on the register and not eligible to cast their votes come from the lowest economic class.

Mr. Hogg: That is not what the hon. Member said, and even if it had been, it would have been totally irrelevant because, as has been pointed out, this Amendment has nothing whatever to do with being on the register. If the hon. Member had troubled to study the principal Act for a moment, he would have seen that a person cannot get a postal vote in this country unless he is on the register. This Amendment has nothing to do with a claim to be registered. It has to do only with the way in which a person exercises a right which he already has.
Hon. Members opposite who are trying to defeat this Amendment by one inconsistent argument after another are inventing reasons—and I deliberately use the phrase "inventing reasons"—for stopping people from exercising a right which they already have, knowing that in this case these people will not be able to


exercise that right at all unless the Amendment is accepted. That is the object—and that is what they are about.
The hon. Member for All Saints was perfectly frank. He said that he thinks that it will have the effect that persons belonging to particular social groups will be unable to exercise their votes. That is what he wants. It is class discrimination, and it is contrary to the Declaration of Human Rights.
Of course, there is no particular reason why I should contrast the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East with the Under-Secretary of State, but the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East said that there would be so many of these postal votes that it would break down the machinery, whereas the Under-Secretary was at pains to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone arid Hythe (Mr. Costain) that so few people in his constituency were involved that we need not bother about them.
Some hon. Members were against the Amendment because, they said, the holidaymakers would be so close to the 50 miles limit that they could go back to the polling stations. Others thought that they would be so far away that they would be unable to exercise their votes at all—unaware of the fact, which they could have seen had they bothered to study the principal Act, that those who have to make a sea or air journey already are on the postal list or can be on it.
The truth is that, whatever arguments are advanced for the Amendment, those hon. Members will find something against those arguments, because they have the extraordinary belief that those take advantage of this Amendment will be more likely to vote against them than to vote for them. Yet I am accused of suspecting people's motives! This is the most bizarre and extraordinary exhibition of cloth-cap Socialism that. I have heard in the House. After the great victory of the last election, we were told that cloth-cap Socialism was a thing of the past. We were told that the Labour Party was a great national party, not confined to any socio-economic groups. We were told that the cloth-cap Socialists were out for ever. It is as if one were walking down Whitehall and suddenly met an ichthyosaurus. Indeed,

it will soon be like meeting an ichthyosaurus, because hon. Members opposite will never get into power again. After the next election, they will be as obsolete as ichthyosauri.

Mr. Gordon Campbell: Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn) rose——

Hon. Members: Divide.

Mr. Campbell: I have been waiting for some time to speak. The Under-Secretary of State said that he was merely intervening in the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) has dealt most effectively with the motives which the Government and their supporters seem to have for objecting to the Amendment. I wish to deal with one or two other objections which the Under-Secretary produced from a technical point of view to the Amendment, which was very well argued by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed). I hope that I may have the Minister's attention, because I shall not take very long.
The Minister's main argument was that if the Amendment were accepted it would open the door to allow anyone to have a postal vote who wanted not to go to the ballot box. In that argument he disregarded the reference in the Amendment to a 50-miles limit. There is no question of lazy voters deciding that they want to have postal votes because they want to stay at home although they are only 300 yards from the polling station. The provision of a limit of 50 miles in the Amendment makes it clear that it is only for people who are some distance away from their homes and on holiday.
Another objection which the Under-Secretary of State deployed to the Amendment was that it would produce enormous administrative complications. That may be a difficulty, but it is not an objection. We are in a technological age—a white-hot technological age, according to the Prime Minister—and to say that we should have to extend the 12-days period to 18 days, in the age of the computer, seems to me to be nonsense. Surely we can improve the procedures of checking the lists which the Under-Secretary described. On Second Reading the Home Secretary said that he was considering the introduction of voting machines. Much more important than that, surely, is to introduce mechanical devices to


assist in checking these postal votes, thus overcoming the difficulties which the Under-Secretary of State described and which are purely procedural difficulties of dealing with pieces of paper, lists and numbers. I cannot accept that that administrative difficulty can be regarded as a major objection to the change which we propose.
Next, the Minister suggested that there would be an increase in the possibility of abuse. I do not believe that that is an objection. It is something on which the electoral staff should be able to check. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), who said that the number of unscrupulous persons who might try to use this system to vote more than once would be a very small proportion of the electorate.
I end by making a plea for those constituencies which contain industries such as the tourist industry in which the staff—for the benefit of the hon. Member for All Saints (Mr. Walden) I am speaking of hotel staffs of all kinds and not just of managers—as well as workers in other industries have to take their holidays in October. Elections often happen in October. Two of the last three elections have been in October. As a result, these people are automatically disfranchised. Their holiday period is directly associated with the kind of work which they do, and they cannot change it.
I therefore support the proposal that we should extend in this way the right which people on the register already have to exercise the vote, because if people on holiday, over 50 miles away from their residence, were allowed to be postal voters in the way suggested that would contribute to solving the problem. I believe that most of those who are 50 miles away from their place of residence at the time of a General Election would thus be covered—and these are people who at present do not have a chance to use their votes—in addition to those already covered by the postal voting regulations.

There are too many electors in this country who lose their opportunity of voting when a General Election takes place. They are on the register, but they are unable to vote because, for reasons over which they have no control, they are absent from their place of residence and where they are registered. I am sure that that is wrong. It must be the responsibility of both sides of the House to reduce the number of such persons who have the right to vote but who, through no fault of their own, are unable to vote when Elections take place. This Amendment would make a great contribution to enabling them to vote.

Sir H. Harrison: Sir H. Harrison rose&—

Sir Douglas Glover: Sir Douglas Glover (Ormskirk) rose&—

Hon. Members: Divide.

Sir H. Harrison: I want only to put a quick question to the Minister.

Mr. Peter Mahon: They are all quick.

Sir H. Harrison: I will make it longer if that attitude is adopted. It is a very important question.
The Minister argued that if the postal vote reached 5 per cent. then, according to reports made to him by returning officers, the system would be unworkable. In the constituency of Eye we have had a postal vote of over 5 per cent. on occasions. Has the Minister had any representations from the returning officer for the Eye Division—the Clerk or Deputy Clerk of East Suffolk County Council—or from the returning officers for Buckingham or Eastleigh, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) referred, specifically stating that on those occasions the system was unworkable?

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 132, Noes 190.

Division No. 12.]
AYES
[7.14 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Body, Richard
Bullus, Sir Eric


Bell, Ronald
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Braine, Bernard
Chichester-Clark, R.


Biggs-Davison, John
Brew John
Clegg, Walter


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Cordle, John


Black, Sir Cyril
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Costain, A. P.




Craddock, Sir Beresford (Speithorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crouch, David
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Currie, G. B. H.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Dalkeith, Earl of
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pym, Francis


Dance, James
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ridsdale, Julian


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Royle, Anthony


Dean, Paul
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Russell, Sir Ronald


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lane, David
Scott, Nicholas


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Longden, Gilbert
Scott-Hopkins, James


Drayson, G. B.
Loveys, W. H.
Sharples Richard


Eden, Sir John
Lubbock, Eric
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Silvester, Frederick


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'le-upon-Tyne, N.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Sinclair, Sir George


Errington, Sir Eric
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Eyre, Reginald
Maddan, Martin
Speed, Keith


Farr, John
Maginnis, John E.
Stainton Keith


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Marten, Neil
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Glover, Sir Douglas
Maude, Angus
Stodart, Anthony


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gower, Raymond
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Tapsell, Peter


Grant-Ferns, R.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Grimond, Rt. Hn.
Miscampbell, Norman
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gurden, Harold
Monro, Hector
van Straubenzee, W. R.




Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Montgomery, Fergus
Vickers, Dame Joan


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper
Waddington, David


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Weatherill, Bernard


Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Webster, David


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Hill, J. E. B.
Neave, Airey
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Onslow, Cranley
Wright, Esmond


Holland, Philip
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Wylie, N. R.


Hooson, Emlyn
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)



Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howell, David (Guildford)
Pearson Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Mr. Anthony Grant and


Hunt, John
Percival, Ian
Mr. Timothy Kitson.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Delargy, Hugh
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Dempsey, James
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Alldritt, Walter
Dewar, Donald
Howarth, Robert (Dolton, E.)


Allen, Scholefield
Dobson, Ray
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Armstrong, Ernest
Doig, Peter
Howie, W.


Atkins, Rinald (Preston, N.)
Dunnett, Jack
Huckfield, Leslie


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)


Ashton, J. W.
Eadie, Alex
Hughes, Roy (Newport)


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Hunter, Adam


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ellis, John
Hynd, John


Barnett, Joel
English, Michael
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Baxter, William
Ennals, David
Johnson, James (K'stin-on-Hull, W.)


Beaney, Alan
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Binns, John
Fernyhough, E.
Kenyon, Clifford


Blackburn, F.
Finch, Harold
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Lawson, George


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Foley, Maurice
Leadbitter, Ted


Booth, Albert
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Ford, Ben
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)




Forrester, John


Bradley, Tom
Fowler, Gerry
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Freeson, Reginald
Lomas, Kenneth


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Loughlin, Charles


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Gardner, Tony
McCann, John


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Garrett, W. E.
Mackenzie, Gregor (Ruthergien)


Buchan, Norman
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mackie, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Gregory, Arnold
Mackintosh, John P.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Maclennan, Robert


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Carmichael, Neil
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Chapman, Donald
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Coe, Denis
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Coleman, Donald
Hamling, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Concannon, J. D.
Hannan, William
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Conlan, Bernard
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mapp, Charles


Cronin, John
Haseldine, Norman
Marks, Kenneth


Cullen, Mr. Alice
Heffer, Eric S.
Marquand, David


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Henig, Stanley
Mason, Rt. Roy


Davies, Dr, Ernest (Stretford)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mendelson, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Hooley, Frank
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Homer, John
Miller, Dr. M. S.







Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Snow, Julian


Moonman, Eric
Pentland, Norman
Spriggs, Leslie


Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham S.)
Thornton, Ernest


Neal, Harold
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Tinn, James


Newens, Stan
Probert, Arthur
Urwin, T. W.


Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Randall, Harry
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Norwood, Christopher
Rankin, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Oakes, Gordon
Rees, Merlyn
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


O'Malley, Brian
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Watkins, David (Consett)


Oram, Albert E.
Richard, Ivor
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Orbach, Maurice
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wellbeloved, James


Orme, Stanley
Rose, Paul
Wilkins, W. A.


Oswald, Thomas
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Padley, Walter
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Sheldon, Rt. Hn. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Palmer, Arthur
Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Woof, Robert


Pannell, Rt. He. Charles
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)



Park, Trevor
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Parker, John (Dagenham)
Silverman, Julius
Mr. Joseph Harper and


Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Small, William
Mr. Eric G. Vaeley.


Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 14, at end insert:
(4) In section 23(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 there shall be added the following paragraph:—
(e) those unable or likely to be unable to go in person from their qualifying address to the polling station by reason of their obligation to comply with the rules of the Jewish religion.
The Amendment deals with a very much smaller group of people than the last one. I hope it will not create burdens for registration officers if it is accepted. It applies only to the small group of orthodox Jews whose religious observances prevent them from attending the poll in person on a Saturday.
We are seeking to add a subsection to Section 23(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, so that these persons would be allowed to vote by post in local elections. This is a real problem in certain communities, as has been found by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), who had experience of it in a local election in his constituency. Others have since drawn attention to it, and as a result of their correspondence with us we wrote to the then Minister of State for the Home Office, the right hon. Lady who is now one of the Ministers of State at the Department of Education and Science. I understand that the hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner) has also made approaches to the Home Office on the question, and he has attached his name to the Amendment.
When we first raised the matter with the right hon. Lady, which was in June, 1966, she told us that arrangements

already existed for Jews to be able to vote in local government elections on a Saturday and that these were apparently working all right. But we had to point out that they did not work satisfactorily in cases where rabbis had instructed their congregations that it would be a breach of their faith to vote in the manner laid down in the local government election rules. This point was raised on 23rd June, 1966, when my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle asked a Question that was answered by the right hon. Lady.
I understand that subsequently the right hon. Lady looked into the matter and found that the problem was as we described it. But there was the additional difficulty that no provision is made for postal votes in rural district council elections. If I had had time—there was a rather short period between the Second Reading and the Committee stage—I should have tabled an Amendment to provide for postal voting in rural district council elections. Our Amendment will deal with only half the problem. It will enable orthodox Jews to cast their votes by post in urban district council elections, where postal votes are allowed, but not in rural district council elections, where Section 23(7) of the Representation of the People Act makes no provision.
In passing, it strikes me as odd that postal voting is allowed in urban district elections but not in rural district elections. After all, if people find it difficult to get to the poll in an urban district, the arguments must apply much more so in rural districts, where the distances that have to be travelled to get to the polling station are obviously greater. It would be interesting to know why we inserted that provision in the Representation of


the People Act, and whether we may take steps to rectify the situation before the Report stage of this Bill. But that is a matter that occurred to me after I had tabled my Amendment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle has had some correspondence with a rabbi in his constituency whose congregation was affected. The rabbi said he thought that an Amendment such as we had tabled would secure a vote for those affected by the rules. I understand that certain rabbis have made representations to the Home Office on similar lines. I hope that the Government will be able to accept the Amendment. It is a very small ex tension of the franchise to a group of people who have been disadvantaged. We know that the problem exists in local elections, and if we do not take the present opportunity to clear it up, another will not occur for some time.
I think that, in all fairness, if a person is prevented from going to the poll by reason of his religious observances provision such as we propose should be made. I extend that remark to others who may be similarly disadvantaged, such as the Sabbatarians. If the Under-Secretary of State requests me to withdraw the Amendment and bring forward a wider one on Report, I shall be only too happy to do so, so that all the religious minorities affected may be included. Probably I have said enough to ex plain the intention of the Amendment.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I support the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). The Amendment is necessary, and will be easy to operate, and I do not think it could be or would be abused.
I declare an interest because I have a large Jewish fraternity in my constituency. I am not sure that the proposal will make any political difference to me. These very strict orthodox Jews are mainly of the older generation, and in my constituency the older generation will probably vote against me. But that does not matter. That does not matter because, if for religious reasons—and I do not subscribe to their faith—they find that they are not allowed to vote on a Saturday, I cannot see why, two or three days before the poll, they should not be allowed to send in a postal vote. This would absolve them from anxiety about upsetting their conscience.
7.30 p.m.
As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is a very strong check, because the rabbi could, if necessary, be called in aid. An electoral officer who had any doubts could consult the rabbi to confirm whether or not the postal voter concerned was one of his people. That would be good enough. I cannot see that this proposal would be abused as some other claims for postal votes might be.
However, it is not only the Jews who are involved. There are other groups such as the Strict Sabbatarians and the Seventh Day Adventists. They, too, should be allowed to exercise this right. It may be argued that not many people can be involved in this issue, but if there are not many then it is all the more necessary that they should have this right.
If the Home Office has already told my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State that this cannot be done, I hope that he will tell the Department that it must have another look at the Amendment. I hope that the matter will be discussed with the reputable organisations which would be able to help in overcoming any difficulties which the Home Office might foresee. They would work with the Department in order to overcome any possibility of abuse.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has done a useful job with the Amendment. I cannot see that any hon. Member will oppose it in principle, but I am not certain that the Government could accent it as it stands. However, the hon. Gentleman has said that he would be happy to withdraw the Amendment if the Home Office gave a favourable answer.
I do not think that this proposal, in our changed society, could apply only to people of the Jewish religion. The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) mentioned the Sabbatarians and the Seventh Day Adventists. We have other strict religious sects in the country—Mohammedans and Hindus, for example—who may have certain days on which, if they are strictly orthodox, they are not allowed to carry on secular activities.
I am sure that it is the consensus of the Committee that the Home Office should look at this problem and consider


how it can avoid any people being disfranchised because of their religious beliefs. It would be unjust if only the Jewish people were allowed to have this right and the rest not. I hope that the Government will look at this before Report stage to see whether they could bring forward an Amendment to cover what the whole Committee is in favour of doing. Mechanically, this scheme would be workable.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: I do not think that there should be any great division on the issue. It does not affect a large number of people. It is part of our task in this Committee to protect the rights and responsibilities of minorities. We are considering orthodox Jews in the first place, but, as has been pointed out, other religious groups may be affected. We are, in fact, considering about 250,000 Jews and I should think that the others concerned probably total 150,000.
I myself am of the Jewish faith but that does not affect me in my constituency. There are six Jewish families in the area and the heads of two of them are councillors in the Labour interest. I am sure that it would not be very difficult for me to persuade the others to vote for me at a borough election, provided that they could vote in accordance with their religious scruples.
The difficulty for an hon. Member who represents a provincial constituency is that the smaller the minority the more orthodox it tends to be within the community. I hope that my hon. Friend will give serious consideration to this matter. It is true that we should not like this extended only to members of the Jewish faith, since this would look like discrimination on behalf of a particular religion. I want the right extended to all those whose religious scruples would prevent them from voting in the normal way on a polling day. I hope that my hon. Friend will give us some encouragement by saying that, on Report, the Government will bring forward a suitable Amendment.

Sir D. Kaberry: The Under-Secretary of State and I represent different parts of Leeds, which has the largest proportion of Jewish inhabitants of any town in the country. Of course, the Amendment

would not affect us because we are not likely to have our county borough elections on a Saturday and, in the wisdom of the national Government, we are not likely to have a General Election held on a Saturday. But circumstances could occur when polling would interfere with religious festivals, and those whose religious susceptibilities could be touched upon by voting should have some form of exception.
I hope that the Amendment will be withdrawn and that the Government will introduce an appropriate Amendment later. I have in mind, for example, the Moslems. There are a lot of them in Leeds. If we had a local government election on a Friday, it might affect quite a number of them. There are a large number of believers in other religions and this right should apply to everyone and not just to one sect. I support the principle of the Amendment.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It might be useful if I speak now. It is the aim of the Government to be as helpful as possible on this. Special provision is already made for Jewish voters at both Parliamentary and local government elections. If a poll is taken on a Saturday, the election officer has the obligation, if a voter declares that he is a Jew, and cannot, on religious grounds, vote in the manner prescribed, to mark the voting paper in the manner asked by that person in the presence of his polling agents.
This has been done since the Ballot Act, 1872. Lord Rothschild played a considerable part in the formulation of that Act and I believe that the appropriate Section was moved by the then Member for the City of London, and it was accepted by the Liberal Government of the day. The Board of Deputies of British Jews pointed out to the Home Office last year that these special provisions did not meet the position of strict Jews. The physical action of marking a ballot paper is regarded as work which, apparently, contravenes the Fourth Commandment, and it is not permitted to ask any person, whether a Jew or non-Jew, to do "for one what one is forbidden to do for oneself". As the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) has pointed out, there is no difficulty at Parliamentary elections, because polling day is on a Thursday. In the case of borough


council elections, my right hon. Friend the Horne Secretary, decides the date, and again it is the practice to fix a Thursday for polling. One of the considerations in choosing this day is the position of strict Jews. Accordingly, it is understood that there has been little problem for members of the Jewish community living in urban areas. However, more recently, they have tended to move to areas outside the towns and, in view of what I have to suggest, it is important that the Committee should be in possession of the facts in connection with local government elections outside de boroughs.
In 1967, the latest year for ordinary county council elections, and the triennial year in which most district councils who hold their ordinary elections triennially last held them, of the county councils, including the Greater London Council, 24 held their elections on Thursday, 19 on Saturday, 12 on Tuesday and four on other days. Of the urban district council elections, 211 were held on Saturday, 114 on Tuesday, 99 on Monday, 69 on Thursday, and 36 on other days. Of rural district council elections, 146 were held on Tuesday, 111 on Saturday, 87 on Monday, 62 on Thursday and 46 on of her days. Taking all these types of elections together, 341 were held on Saturday, 272 on Tuesday, 118 on Monday, and 155 on Thursday. This Amendment is concerned with the 341 which were held on Saturday.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend must appreciate that, in the case of the Jewish religion, and the position is probably the same with others, it is not only Saturdays which are important. There are other holy days in the week. Any day may be affected. I hope that he will not stick only to Saturdays.

Mr. Rees: I am not sticking only to Saturdays, but it is a major part of my argument. Saturday is the most important day for local government elections.
When the Board of Deputies of British Jews approached the Home Office, it was agreed that we should send it a list of those areas holding elections on a Saturday. That was done in April, 1967. The Board undertook to examine it, and indicate which town had a Jewish population which might be affected. The Home Office agreed that it would then consider

approaching the county councils concerned so that they could be reminded of one of the factors to be taken into account when deciding their election dates.
I understand also that the Conference on Local Government Elections Law for England and Wales considered a proposal that all local government elections should be held on a weekday other than a Saturday. There was also before it a proposal from another source that all local government elections should be held on Saturday. The conference came to the conclusion that, at this stage, there should be no alteration in the discretion given to county councils to fix election dates locally within the prescribed weeks. The Government accepted that conclusion.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews has not yet supplied the information as to which of the areas holding elections on Saturdays contain Jewish communities. As a result, there has been no question of the Home Office taking the next step and writing to the counties concerned. It is possible to argue from that that perhaps the problem is not very pressing. That is not to say that it is not important. Incidentally, I understand that there is no problem in Scotland.

Mr. Dempsey: When my hon. Friend says that there is no problem in Scotland, has he had discussions with the Jewish interests there about their holy days?

Mr. Buchan: The point is that Saturday elections never occur in Scotland. The problem of the number of Jews affected by religious festivals occurring on weekdays is on a much more minor scale than the position in England. I have had no direct representations about that.

Mr. Rees: I wish to be helpful. If there is only one person who feels aggrieved, obviously one should do something about it. Whether postal voting is the appropriate way of dealing with it all along the line is another matter.
I do not suggest that I know the answer. It is not a matter, however, in which the Home Office wishes to be unhelpful.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has been very helpful and, obviously, is well-briefed about the Jewish community.
But other problems have been raised in this short debate. I am not asking him to deal with them now, but, so far in his remarks, he has not mentioned them. If the Home Office is to consider the Amendment, I hope that it will be considered on an overall basis, otherwise even greater injustice may be produced.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Rees: I was about to come on to that point and deal with the technical problems raised by the Amendment. It is open to objection on a number of grounds. It is not wide enough to cover everyone who may object to marking a ballot paper on the Jewish Sabbath. There are other religious bodies such as Seventh Day Adventists who regularly observe the Jewish Sabbath as it applies to members of the Jewish religion.
It would call in question the position of many other persons for whom voting in person may be difficult or impractical on religious grounds. The position of members of enclosed religious orders is not crystal clear and, in any promise which I make, I can see many pitfalls in trying to be fair to all concerned.
The Amendment refers to those who are unable or likely to be unable to go in person from their qualifying address to the polling station. It is probable that the obligations of Jews do not prevent them from going to polling stations, though I cannot be dogmatic about that even as an hon. Member having many members of the Jewish faith among his constituents. The difficulty is that they are prevented from doing "work" on the Sabbath. That prevents them voting on that day.
The difference between rural and urban district councils crops up in another part of the Bill.
I would like to be helpful, but there are large numbers of problems involved. If one accepts the principle on a narrow front, people of other religious faiths are upset. I assure the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that it is our wish to be helpful. It may be that, if he accepts my word on that, he will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Sharples: We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the sympathetic view which he has expressed about the Amendment. We are also grateful to the hon.

Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for moving it and raising this most important point.
What has emerged during the course of this short debate is that there is a real problem which goes wider than the terms of the Amendment which the Committee has been asked to consider. The difficulty is that we seldom have Bills of this kind. It is clear that the Bill will make some fairly rapid progress. I realise all the difficulties, but I hope that there might be an opportunity for an Amendment to be incorporated even during the passage of the Bill through another place. I realise it will not be possible during the passage of the Bill through the House. However, I hope that it might be possible for an Amendment to be introduced on these lines, taking in the wider considerations, during the Bill's passage through the other place.

Sir D. Glover: May I say to the Minister of State——

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I may be new here, but I think we ought to get one matter right. Let us stick to Under-Secretary of State for the moment.

Sir D. Glover: The hon. Gentleman has been so sympathetic that in our minds we have promoted him. I would issue one word of warning to him. He must be very careful that he does not get caught by his own Race Relations Bill in bringing forward his proposals to the House.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his full and helpful reply. The difficulties concerning county council and urban and rural district councils will give us a starting point for further consultations with the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the other interests involved which have been mentioned. It was purely shortage of time in drafting which prevented me from mentioning all the other religious minorities who might be affected. It would have been too much to try to ascertain what those religious minorities might be in the week we have had since Second Reading. That is why my Amendment was framed so narrowly. I accept the criticism which has been made.
I would comment on one point in the hon. Gentleman's speech. If he could


persuade local authorities in areas where there were substantial minorities of Orthodox Jews not to hold their elections on a Saturday this might create difficulties for others. I have some experience. My constituency used to be an urban district, but now it is part of the London Borough of Bromley. When it was incorporated in the area of Greater London we found that the poll at local elections dropped substantially. I ascribe this to the fact that people find it easier to go to the poll when they are not at work during the daytime than when it has to be fitted in at the beginning or the end of the day when they may be away from home for as much as ten hours. If the hon. Gentleman was considering a general move away from Saturday for urban and rural district council elections a Id the county councils which are affected, this would require stringent consideration before any decision was made. It is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut. After all, we have all agreed that the number of individuals who might be affected by tie Amendment is very small.
With the assurance that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to listen to any representations that may be made to him between now and Report stage by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7

PREPARATION AND CORRECTION OF REGISTERS OF ELECTORS

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 6, line 3, at end insert:
(3) Such corrections shall be published in a supplementary list as soon as may be after the publication of notice of election and before the last day for delivery of nomination papers.

The Chairman: With this Amendment it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 42, in Schedule 3, page 41, line 27, at end insert:
38. In Schedule 4, in paragraph 3, there shall be inserted after the word 'register', the words 'and supplementary list',
New Clause 5—"Registration of electors: further provisions" and the new Schedule—"Application to be entered on Register".

Mr. Sharples: Clause 7(2) provides for the registration officer to carry out alterations to the published list where it does not carry out his intentions. The real purpose is to cover up printers errors and factual errors in the published list. The purpose of the Amendment is to make certain that, after those errors have been corrected, they shall be published. I hope that the Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment and Amendment No. 42 which goes with it. It is important that provision should be made for alterations to the register to be published in a supplementary list and a clear obligation should be laid upon the returning officer to see that this list is published.

Mr. Lubbock: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) for putting down this Amendment. It follows up a point that I made on Second Reading when I pointed out that it would be for the general convenience of political parties and others who need access to the registers if lists of corrections could be published after the registration officer has made his decision.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, in his winding up speech, gave me the reply that
.. lists of corrections in these cases will be made available to the public and others who are interested."—[Official Report, 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1024.]
I do not know whether this matter is better dealt with under the election rules or whether it should be incorporated in the Bill. I am glad of the opportunity to get this on record. I hope that the Under-Secretary will tell us whether in previous instances of matters like this it has been the custom to incorporate them in the Bill—did we provide for this in the 1949 Act—or whether it would be more usual to provide for them in the election rules, which would mean an alteration in the Statutory Instruments that were published after the 1949 Act. Providing we can get it on record that that is the Government's intention, it will be satisfactory.

Mr. Frank Hooky: I beg to move new Clause 5——

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member's new Clause has not been put down for a Division. Therefore he is unable to move it. It has merely been selected for debate with Amendment No. 8.

Mr. Hooley: I am obliged, Mr. Irving.
The purpose of putting this new Clause on the Order Paper was to draw the attention of the Committee to a problem which I do not think has been sufficiently considered, namely, that immediately the register is published it is inaccurate. The Home Office has estimated that it has been inaccurate to the extent of 4 per cent. Now 4 per cent. may not sound very much, but in terms of the electorate it is a figure of between 1 million and 1½ million electors. Between 16th December of one year and 16th February of the next year but one, a period of 14 months, a person whose name is not so published has no right to vote and is as firmly disfranchised as if he had committed some crime or technical offence which disqualified him as a voter. It is intolerable that there should be no remedy in the hands of the voter who, because of some oversight, administrative mistake or fault in our system of registration, does not happen to have his name included on the list.
It may be that the technique suggested in the new Clause of a statutory declaration before a magistrate designed to get his name so registered is not the best technique for the purpose. Administrative difficulties may be involved in operating this proposal, but I put it seriously to my hon. Friends that it is quite intolerable that a person should be deprived of his vote for 14 months with no appeal and no redress, when no technique exists for this unfortunate state of affairs to be put right.
8.0 p.m.
I want to emphasise the extent of this difficulty. We have been discussing a Clause designed to help a minority. I was wholly in sympathy with the general tenor of the debate. We are now concerned with another minority which is far more seriously penalised. A member of this minority has no way to exercise his lawful franchise once his name has been omitted from the register. Even if this means of remedying the situation is not acceptable to my hon. Friends I hope that they will come forward with a suggestion—short of the two-registers-a-year proposal, which I gather cannot be implemented—for remedying an intolerable state of affairs.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The purpose of the first Amendment is to include a provision

governing the time at which corrections made to the register of electors by the registration officer in exercise of the power given in subsection (2) should be published. The purpose of the second Amendment is to provide power for regullations to be made laying down a timetable for the preparation of supplementary lists showing the corrections. I shall deal with those two Amendments before turning to the new Clause referring to new methods of registration.
I advise the Committee that both Amendments are unnecessary. The intention is that provisions for publishing the corrections will be included in amending Representation of the People Regulations following the enactment of the Bill. The powers given by paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949 are already sufficient for this purpose. It is envisaged that the Amendments to the Regulations will include provision for, first, notification of persons affected by the corrections, secondly, display of corrections in the same way as the register itself is displayed, as laid down in the 1950 Regulations and the Scottish Regulations, and, thirdly, copies of the corrections to be supplied in the same way as the register itself. Most hon. Members are aware of the way in which this is done. It is provided for in Regulation 17 of the 1950 Regulations.
The second Amendment, relating to a time table for the preparation of a supplementary list of corrections is, in any event, not appropriate. While for the purposes of preparing the main register the Regulations properly provide a time table for the publication of electors' lists, for the submission of claims and objections, and for dealing with those claims, such a time table cannot be laid down, in the nature of things, for the supplementary list, which will be merely a list correcting the main register to bring it into line with the registration officer's earlier intentions.
Since the purpose of such a supplementary list is to take account of corrections found to be necessary up to the date of notice of an election, no date can be laid down in regulations for its publication before the date on which notice of an election is given. It would, however, be reasonable for the supplementary list to be available before nomination day,


as the first Amendment suggests. This can be considered when amending regulations are being prepared under the powers given by the Representation of the People Act, 1949, in paragraphs 9 and 10 of Schedule 4. I hope that the hon. Member will accept my advice on those two Amendments.
I am not sure of my ground in referring to the proposed new Clause 5, and Schedule, but I presume that I am in order in discussing points which arise from them, even though they have not been moved. It is intended to provide a means of keeping the electoral register always up to date by the preparation and issue of supplementary lists of electors. I know that my hon. Friend will not mind my saying—it is proper that my hon. Friend should raise this matter—that my noble friend Lord Stonham wrote to him recently in a certain amount of detail. He quite properly pointed out that one solution is to have two annual registers, and with two registers a year the fact that each register costs £3 million would raise a certain problem.
Nevertheless, he revealed that he saw the point of the up-to-dateness of the register. In order to have registration in that way he suggests that an elector would have to make a declaration before a magistrate in the form set out in the proposed Schedule. Apparently this could be done at any time. A person moving into a new constituency could presumably get himself registered as an elector.
This is a technical point. I do not deny that other problems may be involved, bat I must point out that there are no means by which the name of such an elector moving in and wanting to be paced on the new register could he removed from the register covering his previous address. The main objections to my hon. Friend's proposals are that supplementary registration by this means completely ignores the arrangements for objections and the consideration of objections to the registration of names following inclusion in the elector list. In other words, special registration would not be subject to the same test as registration by the usual means.
This is one of the major reasons why, if my hon. Friend were to move the new Clause, I should have to resist it. This is one of the major weaknesses in the

idea that my hon. Friend put forward. Although I do not stand on this point, in view of discussions of that have taken place during the last 48 hours, I must point out that Mr. Speaker's Conference considered the question of a supplementary register each year and rejected it. There are difficulties involved in making a register up to date. A register becomes progressively out of date, and many problems arise in certain urban areas owing to clearance and similar matters.
All I can offer my hon. Friend is the claim that we register a remarkably high proportion of those who should be registered. In some constituencies difficulties arise because of the social background of the people, who move rather quickly. In other constituencies people very slowly from one address to another, or out of the area. It is not simply a question of socio-economic class. In one London constituency which has a very high standard of living the mobility of the population is extraordinarily high.
Given these problems of registration and the means for correction, we do an excellent job, with an average figure of 96 per cent. most registration officers get nearer 100 per cent. but the average is brought down because of the problems that arise in other areas
I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) will accept what I have said about the technicalities of the matter, and my assurance that the points will be met.

Mr. Sharples: The Committee is grateful once again to the hon. Gentleman for his assurances and I am grateful to him for saying that the point will be covered in the election regulations. This is quite satisfactory to us and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 8, at end add:
(4) Section 4(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1949 shall be amended by adding the words—
Provided that where a person has more than one residence, he shall be entitled to register only in respect of the address which he expects to occupy for the longest period in the year for which the register concerned is in force; and in determining this question,


regard shall be had to the circumstances of that person's occupation service or employment: nothing in this proviso shall affect a person having a service qualification.
We have had some discussion about socio-economic groups in earlier debates tonight, and we turn now to the top socio-economic group, of people who are fortunate enough to possess two residences. These people can treat one or other of these residences as their qualifying address at their own whim, and this has consequences to which I should like to draw attention. For instance, if one is resident in South Kensington but owns holidy cottage in Cornwall, one can decide to exercise one's Parliamentary vote in the latter part of the country and not where one normally lives, in South Kensington. This obviously has the effect that an elector who lives in an area which may be strongly Tory and does not need his vote will choose to exercise his privilege of registration in the other constituency.
I do not know whether that is thought to be desirable or not. Certainly, one needs to draw attention to it so that we can question it and take whatever action is thought necessary, on this opportunity, which is the only one we will have probably for the next 15 years. It is a problem which may not have been very evident the last time that we discussed a Representation of the People Bill, because then even the very richest members of the community did not normally own two houses. But with the rising standard of living, the problem will increase, and we must decide where we stand.
Is it thought to be fully democratic that a person who possesses two residences should decide where to exercise his vote, or should we—as our Amendment suggests—require him to be so registered only in the constituency where he normally lives for the greater part of the time? I would have thought that, in equity, he should be so restricted, and this is what the Amendment seeks to do.
We are saying that, if he has more than one residence, he must choose the one at which he normally lives for the greater time, and we amplify that by saying that, in considering which residence he chooses, we should have regard to his occupation, service or employment, words which occur elsewhere in the 1949 Act. Thus, we say that, if a person lives and normally works

in London, he must register there and not in the area where he has his holiday cottage, somewhere on the South Coast.
This may be thought a trivial matter, but when one remembers that some of the constituencies in rural areas have comparatively small numbers of electors—in many cases, especially in some parts of Wales and Scotland, fewer than 30,000—one realises that this could mean that those at the top end of the socio-economic scale are exercising an influence on the result of a General Election out of all proportion to anything which we would think equitable.
I hope that at any rate some hon. Members opposite will agree with me that this is an evil which should be corrected. I do not expect much help from the Conservative Party, because they, of course, are the ones who stand to gain from the existing situation. But if one approaches this problem objectively, as we are trying to do—[An Hon. Member: "Do not be cynical."] Yes, I am cynical, but I know how Tories behave. I have a few of them even in my own constituency.
We shall probably hear from the Tories tonight some arguments against this very sensible Amendment on grounds which have nothing to do with electoral advantage. They will say that they are not considering that, but only the merits of the issue. However, we will know what is in their minds, that their friends should go into these holiday constituencies and, by packing the register, exercise an influence out of all proportion to their numbers. So I hope that at least hon. Members opposite will give me some support in this, and that even the Under-Secretary will approve the Amendment.

[Sir Harry Legge-Bourke in the Chair]

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I think that this Amendment is absolutely ridiculous. I represent a constituency which is a holiday area and which has an electorate not, as the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) suggested, of 30,000 but nearer 80,000. It is also an area where a number of people have weekend cottages; they are, therefore, entitled to a residential qualification which will enable them to be enfranchised. If, as the hon. Member


suggested, this enfranchisement had to be determined on the basis of whether or not they are likely to support a particular political party, this would run entirely counter to the whole concept of enfranchisement.
The basis of enfranchisement in this country—one of its most important planks at any rate—is the residential qualification, and a person who has this qualification on 10th October of a given year is entitled, provided some other considerations are also observed, to exercise his vote in that constituency.
The Amendment suggests that those people, because they move from one residence to another, will have to indicate at some time where they shall be allowed to vote. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, if it were a question of my relying on those who live in weekend cottages in my constituency, I should net be here now——

Mr. Lubbock: They will not indicate: it will be indicated to them, on the strength of which of their several residences they occupy for the greater part of the year.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: This indication, of course, is wholly illogical, because it will depend on their mode of life, and whether in one year they spent more time at their weekend cottages or whether they decided to make it their permanent home.
The position is quite simple. The residential qualification is the basis of our while franchise. The Amendment cuts right across this. If people are fortunate enough, for business reasons or because they are members of Parliament—although the Amendment, I believe, would exempt them—or for other reasons, to have more than one residence, it is entirely up to them, I believe, to decide how they shall exercise that freedom to vote which is part of the whole concept of enfranchisement.
For people to be dictated to as to how they shall vote—this is what it boils down to—and to be deprived of this basic freedom is quite contrary to our basic concept of enfranchisement. I sincerely hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): Mr. Pardoe.

Mr. S.O. Davies: Mr. S.O. Davies (Merthyr Tydvil) rose——

The Temporary Chairman: Order. I think the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) had resumed his seat. I have called Mr. Pardoe.

Mr. Davies: On a point of order. I happened to be on my feet before the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had extricated himself from his seat. Now I will sit down.

The Temporary Chairman: I understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had already caught my eye.

Mr. John Pardoe: This Amendment, which I regard as of immense importance—the Under-Secretary, who is a frequent visitor to Padstow in my constituency will know why I do—affects very few constituencies, but it affects mine considerably. I calculate that there are about 600 of these "non-voters", the great majority of whom vote against me, or did last time. Since the majority in my constituency has been below 1,000 twice since the war, I am naturally sensitive to this. Thus, it is not inappropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), who exports voters from his constituency—I import them into mine—should have moved the Amendment.
The trouble is also that most of the people who are going to live or stay for a few weeks or a weekend every year in these cottages will be Tory voters. Mostly, they will go to Conservative constituencies, because most seaside constituencies are Conservative. It is, therefore, a limited operation which I am undertaking but, nevertheless, in my interests, an essential one.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does the hon. Member realise that one of the most lovely seaside constituencies in the whole of the British Isles is the Gower constituency, which until recently returned the Father of the House of Commons?

Mr. Pardoe: I am not sure that that is relevant. I would be prepared to argue all night whether the beaches there are better than ours. You and I, Sir Harry, spent a long time in Committee discussing Cornish beaches.
We welcome people to Cornwall and I do not mind them coming to live there provided that they do so permanently and vote there. It might be thought that people coming from areas which have not had the benefit of Liberal influence for many years would tend to vote other than Liberal in Cornwall, but that does not happen. The Cornish air exercises a civilising influence on them and they tend to change. In my experience, those who settle there permanently are changed by the general political climate of the place.
My complaint is against those people who come for, perhaps, a weekend or a few weekends in the years, perhaps three weeks in a August and by their voting habits they can change the whole political emphasis in a constituency. By my calculations, there are 600 voters in my constituency who do not live there. They live in South Kensington. For all I know, they may even live in Marylebone, but they escape—and I am glad for them to escape; it is necessary to escape from Marylebone very often—to Cornwall for the odd weekend and their summer holiday, the point being that these people often tend to live in constituencies where their own party's vote is completely secure. Even if they escape from South Kensington, the Conservatives there will still win. Their vote in Cornwall, however, is much more important to their party and, therefore, to their own prejudices. They therefore come down for a holiday for a few weeks or for a weekend in Cornwall and thereby they can influence the result in a marginal constituency. It is not only in Cornwall that this applies. The same can be said of many other constituencies.
Why do I say that they should not be allowed to vote in Cornwall? First, they may not share the interests of the place. Their interests are very often different from the interests of the people living there. They may well wish to preserve Cornwall as a nice, cosy little museum which they can visit for the odd weekend and they do not want nasty, smelly industry there, which would spoil their weekend retreats, whereas local people want industry to come. These people who come may want to keep wages low so that they can have plenty of cheap seasonal domestic service, whereas I and the majority of people in my constituency

want to create conditions of full employment.
Secondly, these people should not be allowed to vote in holiday retreat constituencies because they cannot be affected by the local political climate. I am prepared to convert those whom I can contact, but I cannot get at these people. I cannot offer them a service. I can rarely see them because they are hidden away in the depths of Marylebone or South Kensington. That is another reason why I oppose the principle of their being able to choose where they will vote.
The hon. Member for the New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made great play with the fact that people should be allowed to exercise their residential qualification, and I accept that, but "residence" has never been defined in the principal Statutes. Various constructions have been put upon it from time to time.
We in Cornwall have a rather old-fashioned method of drawing up the electoral register whereby we still preserve our electoral courts. Once every year, my agent rushes though the constituency from town to town trying to drive these so-called Conservatives off the register by claiming. A year ago, he had to claim that they were absent from their residence for more than nine weeks.
Suddenly, the court is liable to change its decision and its interpretation of the law and it says that the nine weeks' stipulation does not mean nine continuous weeks; it means any nine weeks. Therefore, if they are absent from their cottage for nine weeks in the whole year—two weeks here, three weeks there, and so on—there is the problem of whether they have let their cottage for nine weeks. I had always taken it, and until recently it was interpreted, that if they had let the property for nine weeks, it did not matter to whom it was let if the nine weeks was made up in parcels of two or three weeks. Now, however, it has been decided that the nine weeks must be to the same tenant. These interpretations change in different parts of the country. Even in Cornwall they change from one year to the next. I want to have the term "residence" defined.
I accept the point made by the hon. Member for the New Forest that one


should have a residential qualification, but if he studies the statutes—and I have searched the Library from top to bottom—he will see that no one has been prepared to define "residence".

Mr. McNair-Wilson: In my constituency, and, I think, the greater number of constituencies, residential qualification is given on the basis of completion of a form which is issued by the electoral registration officer. That form relates to occupation in residence on 10th October in a given year for inclusion in the register which is published on 16th February the following year. I understood that that arrangement was common to the whole of the British Isles.

Mr. Pardoe: No, it is much more complicated. One does not have to be in residence on a particular date to qualify to get on an electoral register. One can be absent. I am frequently absent from my address in Cornwall on that day because the House is often sitting. If one looks at Schofield on "Parliamentary Elections" one sees that regard is to be paid to the purpose and other circumstances of a person's presence at or absence from the address in question.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I agree that actual physical presence on the day is not required on Form A, but when the form is signed by the occupier of the premises he has to list all those who are resident in the dwelling. It is conceivable that an individual could be away from the residence but, at the same time, enjoy a vote because when the form was completed he was, according to the person signing the form, resident at the establishment on 10th October.

Mr. Pardoe: Two points arise. First, that is incorrect. Although consideration should be given to whether a man has left his wife or his chattels in the residence concerned, many of the houses in my constituency are closed on 10th October or whatever happens to be the qualifying date; and although the dwelling is still a furnished residence, there is no one in residence. It is quite legal to complete the form and get away with it. We can prove that people were not there, but this makes no difference within the terms of the law.
All I am asking is that we should use this occasion to clear up this impor-

tant point, because temporary absence on account of any duty arising from a person's employment is not to be deemed an interruption if, for instance, he intends to return and resume residence within six months. As I have explained, conditions are not the same throughout the country and the matter is extremely complicated, for there is also the question of the person concerned intending to resume actual residence within nine weeks of giving it up and not being prevented from resuming residence as a result of any tenancy which he may have entered into. When I set out to examine the matter I discovered just how complicated it was.
I hope that the wording of Household Registration Form A will be changed because it seems that a large number of people—I have talked to a lot of them; I also have a large file of correspondence—should have their position regularised. Many of those concerned have resented our trying to persuade them not to register in this way, and I feel that some of them do not realise what is at stake. They say, for example, "We want to exercise our vote in Cornwall", and they are perfectly entitled legally so to do. However, if it was stated on the form that they must state the residence at which they are normally resident for more than half of the year, a large part of this problem would be solved.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: From my recollection of the form, is it not a fact that it asks the householder to list those British subjects over 21 whom he anticipates will normally be resident at the address on 10th October? The fact that one of the people listed may be at a different address or abroad is not material. Only those whom the householder expects to be in residence are listed.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe: That is certainly what is stated on the form, but as I have explained there is a way in conscience, if not perhaps in law, around it. Indeed, it is difficult for the law to catch up with this. One is allowed to say that people are in residence even if they are temporarily absent because, for example, of employment.
Many of these people are really business voters. They use this property for letting purposes and some of them may


not even be living there at all. They may use the property for only two or three weekends a year and perhaps a couple of weeks' holiday. For the rest of the time they reide elsewhere. They are deriving income from it, just as if they owned a shop.
It seems wrong that these people should be able to pick and choose where they will have their residential qualification. By being able to choose in this way they can spread their votes much more proportionately than would otherwise be possible. No hon. Member will have missed the fact that I am arguing a special, if limited, point. However, if we are concerned to make elections fair, the Amendment should be adopted. While the Government may not like its wording, I trust that the Minister will carefully look into the matter and perhaps make a similar proposal which would be acceptable to the Government.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: The Liberal Amendment says, in effect, that if a person is ordinarily and regularly resident at a particular address, that is where he should be registered as a voter and not at any other address where he may happen to live for a smaller part of the year. On the basis of what I have heard, a reasonable case has been made. However, I direct the attention of the Committee to the implications of this in relation to a group of people which is far larger in number than the cases quoted so far. I refer to the population of students living away from home. Their number is likely to increase considerably when we give the vote to 18-year-olds.

Mr. Lubbock: If a student is living in digs or at college, then that address would not constitute a residence.

Mr. Rhodes: Four or five days before 10th October each year a flood of students comes into my constituency—they are mainly research students—and are put on the electoral register. They have no previous affinity with the area. Indeed, they have a much stronger affinity with the areas in which they normally reside. They stay on the register for the period during which that register is in force, but usually by May, June or July they have disappeared from my consti-

tuency. If an election takes place in the intervening period they are, of course, entitled to vote in my constituency.
I cannot see how this is right. I am not making a political point, because a number of them are my supporters. I have close contact with them and I live opposite a hall of residence. I think that students should be registered to vote where they are ordinarily at home, and not in college, where they would normally move in for just a short period, or even in digs, where they are in residence for a relatively small part of the year—no more than six months of the year, at the very outside—and for a very short period of their lives.
I pose this as a problem—I do not dogmatise. Although I sympathise with the Amendment, its implications must be fully thought out. I believe that there has been a successful challenge in court of students who registered, I believe, in Oxford, and it seems to me to be a matter that needs clarification.
If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary expresses some sympathy with the Amendment, I should like him to tell us his reactions to the whole problem of the masses of people coming on the register now, many of whom will undoubtedly have two residences—one where they will be in college or digs in a town in which they do not normally live, and one in their home town where their parents or relatives normally reside.

Mr. Lane: I should like to follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) because it is relevant to the general problem which the Amendment raises, although it is a special aspect of it. Clarification of the two points I want to put is all the more important because the voting age is to be lowered to 18 years.
The first side of the coin is rather different from what I think the hon. Member had in mind. Students, we assume, are registered at their normal homes away from the place where they are at university. One of the present grounds for claiming a postal vote is that people are to be away from their normal residence because of the general nature of their occupation, service or employment. Can the Under-Secretary absolutely confirm that this will assure a postal vote to all students away from home at university


at the time of a General Election or a by-election?
The other side of the same coin was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) yesterday in columns 369 and 370 of the Official Report, but no comment was then made on it. I refer to the danger in several constituencies containing universities that the register will be flooded by a number of students who have no particular roots or contacts with the constituency. I have no fear at all in my own case, because I should certainly hope to win by an even greater majority next time if these temporary residents had the vote, but it would be quite wrong, and confusing to the situation in those constituencies, if that were to be the position.
I understand that an important element in the qualification for residence, mentioned by earlier speakers, is that a person should not abandon the right to take up residence at any time in the course of the year. Plainly in most cases students do not have this right of continuous residence where they reside at university, whether it be in college, hostel or lodgings, and I believe that there are several court decisions confirming this. So I assume that the position is that a large majority of the students at universities cannot properly be included in the register for the university constituencies. However, as this is a matter which from now on will be of much greater importance in terms of numbers, I hope we can have absolute confirmation by the Under-Secretary that there is no danger at all of the residence qualification system being abused in this way.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I deal first with the Amendment as moved by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). I noticed that his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) who I am sure is aware that I know Pad-stow, rode a favourite hobby-horse when supporting the Amendment. He was speaking refreshingly in his own interests, but I found it odd that the Liberals, who over the years I have heard arguing on these matters, did not appear to know where the buck stops.

Mr. Lubbock: This is in fact another indication of the need for a change to some other type of electoral area which we shall be discussing later.

Mr. Rees: If it is of the type for which the hon. Member sometimes argues, it would concern a group of people.
I have a certain sympathy with the objective the hon. Member has in mind, but not all who have holiday cottages in Padstow vote in the way in which the hon. Member appeared to think. Whether they vote the way in which we would like them to do is a rather different question. This proposal is quite impracticable. There are 630 Parliamentary constituencies and a separate register is prepared for each of them with no co-ordination or possibility for consultation beyond that incidentally afforded by the fact that some registration officers act in that respect for one or two neighbouring constituencies. There are 201 registration officers for 547 constituencies. Computer facilities are sometimes shared in the preparation of more than one electoral register.
The hon. Member sought a legal definition to avoid the requirement that an elector should register once only but that is unenforceable.

Mr. Pardoe: Surely the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that the requirement that no one shall vote more than once in an election is unenforceable?

Mr. Rees: I am arguing that a check on whether people are in fact registered in two constituencies in unenforceable. If it were imposed, the fact that an individual had contravened the requirement would come to light only by chance. The present law tacitly recognises the present situation in the proviso in Section 1(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which provides that a person shall not vote as an elector in more than one constituency. There is far more chance however, by the nature of the knowledge of people in an area. Where it is possible to enforce registration in respect of one address this is already done, for example, in the case of Service voters where a person can declare only one address. In the case of civilians it could hardly be made an offence for a householder to include a person's name on Form A when he was already included by another householder on Form A.
There are difficulties here. There is the problem that the name "John Smith" might appear 20,000 times. The


problem of checking that kind of thing is extraordinarily difficult. I apologise again to the Committee for putting an argument based on technical difficulties. I wondered at one pitch whether there was anything in the definition at present and I looked at the definition in the Representation of the People Act, 1949, which lays down in certain subsections conditions about absence and lettings. Although it may give the hon. Member precious little satisfaction, I sympathise with his problem but it is extraordinarily difficult for the State to lay down that a person must decide on one residence or the other as the place in which he should be registered. I see the difficulties, but, for technical reasons, I can only advise the Committee to resist the Amendment.

Mr. Donald Chapman: What about the point made from the Liberal bench that Form A should at least offer some guidance on this matter and that people should be encouraged to register where they normally are resident? Cannot we look at this again before Report stage?

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Rees: Certainly. My right hon. Friend will consider that in relation to the administration side. Perhaps something will come out of this. I will also look more carefully than I hastily had the chance to do at the legal meaning in the 1949 Act.
The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) gave me notice that he intended to raise his question about students, a question which was followed up by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). I am advised that the qualifying date for registration is 10th October, during term. Are students entitled to be registered as resident at university or college whilst at home? This problem will have come the way of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), with his experience of Oxford, although that was some time ago now. It was in Oxford that the courts had to decide the question which arose in relation to students living at Ruskin. It is not surprising that it was at Ruskin, because in the days of votes over 21 this was far more likely to arise with older students.
I understand that the courts have taken a view both ways. Registration officers

generally, and the various books of reference, hold that students in halls of residence should not be registered there but at home. Form A asks householders to include all persons resident at their address, including those temporarily absent. Specific examples are given of persons temporarily absent as students and people in hospital. That is as firm as I can be. This is the intention, but there is the question of legal interpretation. Problems must arise for a small majority of students who do not come into this general aspect of having a home or a residence in the sense in which I have defined it.

Mr. Michael English: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are very few wardens of halls of residence and relatively few registrars of universities who understand the guidance which has just been given? Could not something be done, particularly in view of the lowering of the voting age, to make what is the understanding in this matter clearer to these people?

Mr. Rees: I will certainly consider with the returning officers of the area concerned what rights my right hon. Friend has in this respect.
If students are in lodgings, landladies might include their student lodgers as residents. Whether this would be acceptable is a question of fact in each case, because here it is someone who has moved out of a hall of residence and become a lodger. This has very respectable antecedents in the field of electoral law. Form A asks the householder to include all persons resident at the householder's address, and it gives the example of students.
We would be on weaker ground here with regard to students in lodgings, even though since the war, particularly in many of the provincial universities, there is a smaller proportion of students living in hall. I believe that in the older universities there has been a movement out into lodgings of sorts since the war.
The question already arises with students over 21 but appears to give rise to few difficulties. If the voting age comes down to 18, the overwhelming tendency is likely to result in students being registered in their areas. Students would


be entitled to postal votes in their home areas.
I have dealt, perhaps not satisfactorily, with the point about which the hon. Member for Cornwall, North feels so strongly, but I will certainly look at the administration side. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East and the hon. Member for Cambridge are satisfied. What I have said is the most I can do to satisfy anybody on this point.

Mr. Hogg: This has been an interesting debate and we have probably not heard the last of it. I am against the Amendment in its present form for broadly the same reasons the Under-Secretary gave, although he did not quite dispose of the problem. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for coming into the Chamber just after he had concluded his speech. It was not entirely my fault, and I was sorry to miss what he said.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) was evidently inspired by the praiseworthy motive of getting more Conservative voters to vote in St. Marylebone. This is the most extraordinary piece of altruism I have heard in the debate, and I can only applaud it, but I do not think that his simpliste view of the problem stands scrutiny.
One and by far the most prominent of the difficulties in the way has been suggested by hon. Members representing university towns—my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Lane) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes). I too, have represented a university seat, as the Under-Secretary said, and in my present constituency I have some very large student hostels and a very large technical college with which my family has been connected for a long time. There is a very difficult problem, but now that we have enlarged the voting age, it is a problem the solution of which we cannot leave entirely to chance. The Government should give some advice either in the Bill, or on the form.
The arguments about students tend in almost the opposite direction from that of the argument of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. We must now remember the great public schools. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman gave notice to the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and

Slough (Miss Lestor) about the sinister effects upon her chances of election in a highly marginal seat which his proposal would certainly have when votes at 18 are the rule and the entire sixth form at Eton votes against her—with one or two notable exceptions, no doubt the sons of Conservative Members of Parliament.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the noble Lord, Lord Snow is sending his son to Eton?

Mr. Hogg: Of course all Socialist Ministers send their sons to public schools and all sons of Conservative Members of Parliament have strong Socialist tendencies. Over a long period of time, they thus compare with each other, and no doubt each son marries a daughter of the opposite class.
I therefore look at the words of the Amendment, which is not a bad thing to do when one is discussing it, and I emphasise the extraordinary difficulty. It involves entitlement to register. That is the first thing to realise about it. Entitlement to register is based on the first few Sections of the principal Act, but the basic Section is that which provides that those entitled to vote as electors should be those resident there on the qualifying date.
One of the difficulties which the supporters of the Amendment have failed to realise is that the form is filled up by an informant who happens to be a householder while the person entitled to vote is not necessarily the same person, or even a member of his family. Let me illustrate that with a simple example from my own experience. For a long time, I was resident on the borders between the constituency of Hastings and the constituency of Eastbourne. According to boundary distributions, I was sometimes in one and sometimes in the other constituency. I employed a gardener and he was always put on my form, because he was ordinarily resident there. But he had a flat at Eastbourne where he was the informant himself. If the Amendment had been passed, I do not know how I could have filled up my Form A without knowing how he would fill up his Form A—that is, without incurring some kind of offence under the Perjury Act or whatever it is which sanctifies these forms. The Amendment includes the phrase
shall be entitled to register".


but it is not the voter who is entitled to register. The voter is entitled to vote but the registration is done partly by the returning officer who receives the forms and partly by the informant who fills them in.
Let us proceed to the criterion which entitles the man to register. The first criterion is
only in respect of the address which he expects to occupy
—that is, the voter. How can the informant know what the voter expects? How can I be sure whether my gardener is about to give notice? I could ask him, of course, but he would not tell me unless he intended to give notice at that moment. I could not tell what he expects. What happens if he is genuinely wrong and if secretly I had decided to give him the sack? He may have expected to occupy my cottage for nine months in the year, but in fact he may have been going to occupy it for two weeks. I do not see how we can make this sense, far less enforce it.
Next, the criterion is to be the longest period of the year, according to the Amendment, but is that the right criterion? The man may have his wife and children in a house in one area, but his occupation may take him miles away for most of the year. To move away from the examples of married men, the public school boy of 18, who was resident in his public school for nine months of the year, and who will now have a vote, would have to register as at Eton and Slough or Harrow-on-the-Hill or Winchester, for example. The university student, on the other hand, who is about six months of the year at home and six months at the university, would be in a pretty quandary, as would the warden of his hall of residence, for the warden of his hall of residence would not know whether he was expected to live at home for the rest of the year.
If we proceed along these lines, we cannot use the criterion of the expectation of the person entitled to vote and we cannot make the criterion the longest period of year, because that does not put the weight where the proposers of the Amendment want to put it.
Next we come to the mysterious phrase,
in determining this question regard shall be had to the circumstances of that person's occupation, service or employment".

Let us have regard to it, certainly, but how can that necessarily affect where he expects to live for the longest period of the year and why should that be the only factor mentioned specifically to which we should have regard?

Mr. Lubbock: I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for this, but had he heard my speech he would have understood that the Amendment refers to the man who normally works, for example, in London, and whose occupation, service or employment is in London, but who possesses a holiday cottage on the south coast. We can easily determine, by asking him where his occupation, service or employment is carried on, that he should normally register in South Kensington.

Mr. Hogg: I greatly deplore the fact that I did not hear the hon. Member's speech, but that is precisely what was said by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. But are they not considering the wrong criterion and generalising from too narrow a series of examples? I can quite understand, in the case which he mentioned, that many people would say that that was the right answer, but a man who is at his genuine home for only a short time in the year and whose normal employment takes him away for a long time—which is, after all, not so rare a situation that it can be ignored from the point of view of this kind of legislation—would come to exactly the opposite conclusion.
I quite understand the hon. Member for Cornwall, North resenting the fact that a number of occupiers of holiday cottages voted against him at the General Election rather than vote for me. I can understand them preferring to vote against him than to vote for me. It is a perfectly intelligible choice, although I may regret it from many points of view. At the same time, he is just as badly off with retired people, who represent the same kind of interest. His great objection was that these country cottagers had a different view from his of the interests of his constituency, and, so he said, from that of the majority of his constituents. Suppose they have. He will be carried home by the triumphant majority.
The hon. Gentleman presented an argument about the interest in keeping a place as a sort of cosy, country enclave


instead of having the constant employment that he may rightly want for his constituency. The difficulty is that the same kind of argument would apply to the retired people there. I fancy that all the holiday resorts, if the hon. Gentleman's is no exception, include a large number of retired people who, for reasons which may be adequate or totally perverse, genuinely pursue that kind of conservationist approach which is anathema to those who pursue the expansionist approach. This is part of what seaside politics are about. I do not say that one should be influenced, on what is basically an unintelligible Amendment, by the hon. Gentleman's choice of the expansionist approach to his constituency rather than the conservationist approach. I can see that he minds, but I cannot see that he minds it rationally.
Therefore, I think that the hon. Member for Orpington has raised a genuine difficulty. The difficulty has become more acute with the lowering of the voting age, upon which the Committee decided last night, because for various reasons young people tend to concentrate between the ages of 18 and 21 in places at which most of us would think they would not ordinarily be resident. The Under-Secretary of State must return to this question if we reject the Amendment.
The warden of one big residents' hostel in my present constituency told me only the other day that he had put everybody in the hostel into my register. I am sure that he was wrong, but he has done it, and they are there. Many of them made representations to him against it, because they were resident wholly outside this country and did not wish to play any part in British politics, for reasons which I thought were both honourable and intelligible. The wardens of hostels, the landladies of lodgings for students, the headmasters of public schools, and, for that matter, the returning officers of the hon. Gentleman's constituency must be given a little more guidance about the problem of residence, which has almost metaphysical connotations, as the Attorney-General would tell the Committee if he favoured it with his legal advice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well how "residence" occupies hundreds of pages of the Law Reports, like "domicile" and other metaphysical things like

"cause". The Government must do a little better than has been done in the past, though that is said without any reproach to them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) for expanding on the problems. I told the Committee that my right hon. Friend would look at the matter in the light of the advice given by a variety of people on Form A. We shall look at it in the light of what has just been said and perhaps also in the light of the Regulations which the House will have to pass eventually.
Valuable contributions have been made to the debate from both sides of the Committee, and the debate has illuminated a dark corner of the Bill for me. I shall most certainly give the assurances to both sides of the Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Chapman: In subsection (1) the Clause continues the requirement of the 1949 Act that, in effect, there shall be one register per annum. It is this point that I wish to query.
In the previous debate a number of points were made about the accuracy of the British register. I accept that entirely. We have a register which is very accurate. There is an amendment of the law in subsection (1) which will make it more accurate than ever. This is a point that I put to Mr. Speaker's Conference, and I was glad to see that it was accepted by the conference and am glad to see that it has now been accepted by the Government.
Subsection (1) states that it shall now be a duty of the registration officer:
to take reasonable steps to obtain information required".
In other words, there will be a greater onus now on the registration officer to go for accuracy and use all possible means of obtaining a thoroughly up-to-date and accurate register.
Having said that, I am concerned about the possibility of continuing indefinitely with only one register per annum, as the Clause implies. Mr. Speaker's Conference, as the published report indicates, rejected the idea of two registers


per annum on Mr. Speaker's casting vote. Mr. Speaker gave his vote against two registers per annum on the ground, as explained in the Report, that he thought any change of the law should have a majority of those voting in favour of it. So the conference was equally divided on this, and there is, clearly, a strong case for moving away from one register per year.
This is because of the continual process of inaccuracy creeping in as the year goes by under the Clause as drafted. The Social Survey undertook an inquiry into this in 1966–67 and found the position roughly as follows. On the qualifying date the register is about 96 per cent. accurate. By the time it is published in February it is 93 per cent. accurate. By the time one gets to August it is 89 per cent. accurate. By the time one gets to the following February it is only 85 per cent. accurate. In other words, we may start very nicely with only 4 per cent. inaccuracy, but by the time the year has gone through we have 15 per cent. inacuracy because of people moving house.
Therefore, I plead with the UnderSecretary—I raised this point in an intervention on Second Reading—for an assurance that as soon as possible the provision will be altered, that as soon as possible we shall move to two registers per annum, and also that we shall try to afford the £3 million involved, which is really the point at issue.
But there is a further point. Mr. Speaker's Conference looked at the possibility of keeping registers up to date by computer. We had a report about it, but I was not entirely convinced. The science of computers is advancing so rapidly that what we might not be able to do now by computer we shall certainly be able to do in five years' time. If we can at the same time get printing speeds tuned up to take account of computer speeds, we may be able to produce more than two registers a year without undue effort.
I seek an assurance that the Home Office is very well aware of the disadvantage of having one register per year, which the Clause perpetuates, and of the growing inaccuracy of the register as the year wears on, and that as soon as possible amending legislation will be brought in to increase the number of

registers per annum. Whether it is by computers or manual methods is immaterial at this point.
I did not put down an Amendment on this point because I was advised that it would have necessitated also putting down new qualifying dates for two registers a year and all sorts of other complications. I leave the matter at asking for an assurance that my hon. Friend accepts the principle. One political party put very strong evidence before Mr. Speaker's Conference pressing hard for two registers, and I believe that the other political party was also in sympathy. All that held us up was the cost of £3 million. I should like my hon. Friend's assurance that this situation will not last forever.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Changes have been made as a result of the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. Despite that, the Clause will not deal with the issue of having two registers a year. My hon. Friend got to the nub of the matter. The blunt answer lies in the cost of £3 million. But I can give him an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend that, as soon as possible a change will be made. But it certainly will not be yet. However, there is no doubt, in the mind of my right hon. Friend, that the best way of ensuring an accurate register would be to have two registers per year. My hon. Friend has explained, by percentages, how the register gets out of date quickly and those hon. Members representing large urban areas where there are declining populations know what a problem this can be. It is incredible how inaccurate a register can get in a short time. I assure the Committee that we shall readily play our part in improving the situation.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8

LIMIT ON, AND DECLARATION AND PUBLICATION OF, ELECTION EXPENSES

Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 6, line 25, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Harry Legge-Bourke): With this Amendment it would be convenient to take Amendment


No. 66, in page 6, line 14, leave out '£750' and insert '£500'; No. 67, in line 15, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 68, in line 18, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 11, in line 28, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 12, in line 35, leave out 'six' and insert 'four'; No. 13, in line 37, leave out 'six' and insert 'four' and No. 14, in line 37, at end insert:
(3) Notwithstanding the provision made in Clause 8(1)(b), for the Greater London Council elections held subsequent to the coming into force of the one member electoral areas the maximum amount of election expenses shall be £200 together with an additional 1s. 0d. for every four entries in the register of electors to be used in the election and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four.

Mr. Sharples: I understand, Sir Harry, that Amendment No. 14 will be called for a separate Division if necessary.

The Temporary Chairman: That is correct.

Mr. Sharples: These Amendments deal with election expenses at local government elections. The last time the sum for election expenses was fixed was in the 1949 Act. Mr. Speaker's Conference took account of the increases in prices since then, particularly in such items as printing. It recommended increases in the rates of expenses for constituencies which would raise the rate, for example, for the average-sized constituency of 60,000 electors from £850 to £1,150, or by approximately 30 per cent.
The question of local government election expenses was considered by the Home Office Advisory Committee. This was before that Committee had the advantage of knowing what the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference would be. I think that if it had had the advantage of knowing the considerations taken into account by Mr. Speaker's Conference it might have reached a different conclusion.
9.15 p.m.
There is no doubt about the need to increase the amount of election expenses allowed at local government elections. The purpose of these Amendments is to bring into line with the amounts allowed for Parliamentary elections the increase which is proposed for local government elections, taking into account increases in

costs which have arisen since they were fixed originally in 1949.
It is proposed to alter from six to four the number of entries in the register of electors for which an additional shilling can be claimed. We accept the recommendation of the Home Office Advisory Committee that the basic amount should be increased to £30. However, the effect of the Government's proposal is to increase the amount only by something approaching £9, irrespective of the number of electors in any local government area.
In the case of a very small local government unit, that may make sense. However, more thought should be given to the larger units, and perhaps I might give some figures of the differences between the present scale, that which the Government propose and the Amendment which we suggest. It will help the Committee to get these matters into perspective.
In the case of a parish council with 150 electors, the present scale is £25. The Government propose to increase that to £31 5s. We suggest that it should be raised to £31 17s. 6d. In other words, we more or less agree with the Government's proposal for the smallest units, but we consider that, as the size increases, there should be a comparative increase in the rate of expenses allowed.
Taking a local government unit with 5,000 electors, the present scale of expenses allowed is £62 10s. The Government propose to increase the rate to £71 13s. They make that proposal despite the fact that those who took part in Mr. Speaker's Conference agreed that costs had risen by about 55 per cent. Our proposal would be to raise the amount to £92 10s.
In the case of a unit with 20,000 electors, the present rate is £187 10s. The Government propose to raise it to £196 13s. We suggest that it should be £280.
I do not think that we are asking the Committee to accept excessive rates in local elections. However, the rates agreed in 1949 with the simple addition of £9 or thereabouts are quite unrealistic in modern conditions, taking into account, above all, current printing costs.
Amendment No. 14 makes special reference to Greater London. If the Government do not accept it, we propose to divide the Committee on it. In Greater London, we claim that the basic amount should be increased from £30 to £200, and that the same alteration should be made by reducing the number of electors for whom the shilling can be claimed from six to four.
Greater London is on a much larger scale. Greater London Councillors, broadly speaking, represent the same number of electors as are represented by Members of Parliament in Greater London constituencies. The rate agreed by the Government—and agreed by Mr. Speaker's Conference—for a constituency represented by a Member of Parliament is £1,150. The rate proposed in the Bill for expenses for a Greater London councillor, representing approximately the same number of electors, is £446. I do not believe that this is realistic. Our proposal would increase the rate of expenses for a Greater London councillor to a maximum of £825.
I believe that our proposals are realistic in the light of increases in expenses. The proposals are directly in line with the proposals for Parliamentary Elections recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference, accepted by the Government, and included in the Bill. But, above all, I think all concerned with democratic government worry a great deal about the comparatively small turn-out at local government elections. We shall be considering later how a candidate at a local government election gets his name known to the electorate. No matter how hard a candidate may try, it is not possible to do this on the maximum scale of expenses proposed by the Government.
We are not proposing anything extravagant or anything which will particularly benefit one party or the other. I do not believe that this enters into the figures we are proposing. In the light of an increase in expenses of about 53 per cent. since 1949, we are proposing something which is in line with the modern rate of expenses which a candidate has to bear to make it possible for him to put his views over to the electorate whom he will be asking to return him as their representative.

[Mr. HARRY GOURLAY in the Chair]

Mr. James Allason: I understand, Mr. Gourlay, that you are also allowing discussion of Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) and myself relating to a county constituency in a Parliamentary election, which is a little different from what my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) has been discussing.
The Clause increases to some extent the sums which may be spent in Parliamentary elections. I agree that there must be a severe restriction on expenditure. Nobody wants to see a tremendous increase in expenditure permitted in Parliamentary elections. At the same time, we must recognise that costs have gone up especially for large constituencies. The formula in the Clause produces an allowance of 8d. per voter in the case of a small constituency of 30,000, but only 4d. per voter in a larger constituency of 90,000—and 90,000 is by no means the largest. Large constituencies are a modern feature of the landscape.
Much expenditure is directly related to the size of an electorate. A large item of expenditure is on envelopes and paper, before there is any printing. There is also the question of posters. With large constituencies the experience has been that election addresses get smaller and smaller and more and more meagre because it is impossible to run an election and produce a satisfactory election address.
The Boundary Commission is now engaged on the task of producing an average-sized constituency of about 60,000, plus, presumably, 10,000 in respect of votes at 18, which will bring the average up to 66,000. That provision will not be enforced before the next election. We shall face the new election, therefore, with constituencies of between 90,000 and 120,000——

Mr. Speed: In my case, if the election occurs at the beginning of 1971 my electorate will be between 150,000 and 160,000.

Sir D. Glover: It should not go out from this Committee that a Conservative


Member says that we shall not get this change before the next election. I hope that my Front Bench will have a blazing row if we do not get it before the election.

Mr. Allason: I was indicating the clearly expressed intention in the debate on the Queen's Speech. I agree that we skill have a blazing row about it, but we must face the fact that the Government will probably not do anything about it.
The effect of the formula provided in the Clause will be to provide an allowance of £750 in a county constituency, plus 2d. per voter. The Amendment would substitute the figures of £500 and 3d. respectively, which gives exactly the same total for the average constituency of 60.000. The Amendment would attack small constituencies by reducing the sum which candidates were entitled to spend, but would allow large constituencies a fairer deal.
With an electorate of 30,000 the allowance will be £1,000, which, if the Amendment were accepted, will be reduced to £875. Ai 90,000 the allowance is £1,500 under the Bill, which would be increased to £1,625 by the Amendment. With an electorate of 120,000 the figure under the Bill would be £1,750, which would be increased to £2,000 by the Amendment. I regret that I have not worked out the figures for an electorate of 150,000, but there would be an increase of about ½d. per elector in the case of my hon. Friend's constituency of Meriden.
The Amendment would produce a more reasonable disparity between electorates of 30,000 and 90,000 respectively. Instead of the allowance being £1,000 for an electorate of 30,00 and only £1,500 for an electorate of 90,000, it would be £875 for the 30,000 and £1,625—nearly twice as much—for the 90,000. That is a much fairer way of dealing with the problem of large constituencies.
The House must recognise the immense disparity in the size of constituencies. The Bill's formula is unfair on large constituencies and my Amendment, which is very modest, makes some improvement. I appeal to the Under-Secretary of State, who is a constituent of mine—he looks doubtful, but I thought that he was; perhaps he has a country cottage there—to let ma spend 4½d. on him at the next election rather than just 4d.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Hamling: The Opposition's Amendments are far too modest. There is no Amendment at all on the particular provision for borough constituencies in Parliamentary elections. I have discussed with my agent the limit which the Bill puts down for my constituency. We might be able to fight a General Election this year at this figure—this certainly will not arise; I must disappoint some hon. Gentlemen opposite—but I doubt whether we could afford to fight an election in five years or even two years on these figures.
This puts an unfair burden on party agents. We ourselves never have to certify accounts or draw up the budgets for elections. Someone might say that we are not, either, expected to find the money——

Sir D. Glover: You could not.

Mr. Hamling: I could find the money in Woolwich, all right. My party is not a poor party. We could find the money to fight an election tomorrow in my borough.

Sir D. Glover: If I'm called, I intend to say exactly the same thing, because I agree entirely with the hon. Member. But I did not mean that. I meant that he personally or the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) could not find the money. Of course the constituency parties could find the money.

Mr. Hamling: It might be better if I made the hon. Member's speech and then we might be saved another one.
We are not being realistic enough. My point about the imposition which we place on agents is very serious, because to keep within the limit they might resort to shifts, stratagems, devices, not to say fiddles. I will not say what fiddles an agent might use, since I do not want to put evil thoughts into the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite—[An HON. MEMBER: "And on your side."] We are a decent lot over here. We should certainly consider this carefully. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell the Committee that, whatever his attitude to these Amendments, before we finish with the Bill, we will have a much more realistic approach to this problem.
It is reasonable to argue that there could not be excessive expenditure by constituency parties on either side, because the costs of printing and envelopes and the other costs of an election these days are such that few parties, with odd exceptions, could really afford to go in for the sort of expenditure which was indulged in in my home town in 1840, when a gentleman spent £20,000 on an election and then lost the election as well as the money. He went bankrupt. Those were the corrupt days of borough politics. We are not living in those times now. No party—actually, it was a Conservative—could afford to go in for that excessive expenditure today.
I am always chary about controlling expenses because one can get into a very artificial situation. If there is one level of expenditure which is considerable, which ought to be looked at and controlled, it is precisely not mentioned in the Bill. I refer to national expenditure, expenditure on advertising. If there is any expenditure that should be controlled, it is this. Expenditure which involves candidates presenting themselves to their electors, however, is surely the one kind of expenditure which should not be looked at in this rather censorious manner.
I have always felt that the control of expenditure was looked on with a rather censorious eye. But it is the impersonal, large-scale national propaganda, which is not related to particular constituencies, which is frequently of a rather crude and superficial character, which is allowed to proliferate. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary that we should look at this national expenditure again.
The other kind of expenditure which, I hope, my hon. Friend will reconsider is the expenditure by outside bodies, by vested interests. I do not know how we can control some of this, but there is a lot which comes flooding in at election times from different outside bodies, calculated to have an effect upon the result, from people who have no responsibility to the electorate. It is this sort of expenditure which, I hope, my right hon. and hon. Friends will look at again.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Allason) in the second

set of Amendments which we are discussing with the principal one which has been moved from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee. I will make simply the modest comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) that it is an interesting commentary on the Government's economic policy that a highly intelligent supporter of the Government can calculate that while he might well be able to underwrite an election today on the figures given in the Bill, he could not do so in two years' time. This is one of the most damaging admissions of the present inflation that I have heard for a long time.

Mr. Hamling: I can look at the sort of expenditure that was permissible when I first stood at an election, and I have been contesting elections for 20 years. I have been looking at the inflation in election costs which happened years ago. One does not need to make a petty party point on this.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I have got the hon. Member to his feet and succeeded in my object. I think that I have made my point.
I support this series of Amendments because I represent, as do other hon. Members, a county constituency with, mercifully, a large majority, but also a large electorate. Indeed, if one counted one's majority at the present time, it would be positively vulgar. I represent 100,000 constituents. I am, therefore—to use the technical expression—"overweight". [Laughter.] I trust that no hon. Member will wish to comment on that. Hon. Members who represent very large numbers of people in their constituencies are directly affected by the Clause and, therefore, by the Amendments.
Having listened to the remarks of the Home Secretary on this matter, I am convinced that amendments to boundaries will not take place before the next General Election. The proposal for my area would divide the constituency roughly in half—I must not go into that at this stage, because I would be out of order—and there would then be two Conservatives representing the area instead of one, and that is why amendments to boundaries will not take place. I am satisfied that a seat like mine will be


represented by one hon. Member after the next General Election, as it is today.
We are, therefore, acutely interested in the, amount of money involved. I do not understand why the scale of what I shall call "fees" proposed in the Clause stops at an upper figure well below the electorate of a considerable number of constituents now represented in the House of Commons. Why does the scale stop at a certain figure when many of us demonstrably represent many more constituents than that? The Minister must meet this point head-on if he is to give an effective answer to the alternative scale contained in the three Amendments to which I am speaking.
I agree that all sorts of expenses have gone up. I let hon. Members into a secret when I tell them that I fought the last two General Elections without issuing an election address. Why do hon. Members persist in having election addresses when they are things of the past? They are, however, represented as part of the Amendment because they come into the costs which we are discussing. However, they are basically a left-over from an era when communications were poor. At that time candidates had to circulate in full their views on each matter of the day. That is no longer applicable.
Nevertheless, the electorate expects to hear something from candidates and, while the free post—which is available to all candidates—is of considerable help, the expenses involved in producing and circulating a massive electorate of the kind I represent are not properly reflected in the Clause. This problem will be accentuated—and I am glad of this—by our decision yesterday to add further to the electorate.
The Government have not, in the Clause, made sufficient weighting for the size of a county constituency. This is a real problem for those of us who must fight such seats. We have not only substantial areas to cover—in my case I cannot complain about that—but substantial numbers of people to cover, large numbers of meeting to attend and a great many people to circulate through the various communications systems. This is one of the more expensive features of a General Election campaign. This must all be done within what the average man would regard as perfectly reasonable expenditure.
9.45 p.m.
Since I made a reference, in quite a lighthearted way, to the hon. Member for Woolwich, West, I end by saying that I think that he made a very real point when, at the very end of his speech, he spoke of the risk of making criminals of election agents. The Government must treat this point with care. The Committee must treat this matter with some delicacy— and we all understand why—but the point made by the hon. Gentleman struck home. Frankly, some of us know that our affairs are arranged with care, and I do not believe that it is conducive to a healthy democratic system.
Very little extra would obviate all that. It would not get anywhere near approaching to the kind of luxuriant expenditure that neither side is prepared to contemplate. But it would remove the criminal or quasi-criminal nature of some of the arrangement of affairs that goes on in all parties on both sides of the Committee when we are faced with the predicament of getting a gallon into a pint pot. I therefore hope that the Under-Secretary will not feel that this is a frivolous exercise. It is put as a serious contribution, and it is particularly relevant to those who, like myself, represent very substantial electorates.

Sir D. Glover: I give qualified support to the Amendment, but I warmly support the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). I will be quite honest with the Committee by saying that when this matter was discussed in Mr. Speaker's Conference—and I do not think that that hon. Member was a member at that time I expressed my hostility——

Mr. Hamling: So did I.

Sir D. Glover: I am very worried about this Clause. By the very nature of things, it will probably be another 10 or 15 years before Parliament debates another Representation of the People Bill, and the figures in the Clause are even today totally inadequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), in a very charming speech, called attention to the difficulties of agents. Let us be quite blunt, and say that we are stretching the credibility of some of these election expense returns to the absolute snapping point. It is not right that the House should inflict this dangerous responsibility


on a lot of very hard-working, responsible and worthy citizens. It is not right that we should ask them to try to put a quart into a pint pot.
What makes the position worse, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will go back to the Home Secretary and tell him, is that we know that this is the position now. The increases in this Clause are totally inadequate even to take care of the inflation we have had since the last similar Bill was debated, but the figures in their purchasing power are still far less than the House of Commons thought adequate 20 years ago. Yet we are putting these figures solemnly into the Bill; accepting them as adequate for the 10 or 15 or 20 years before the House of Commons debates the subject again.
The Home Secretary should take the whole Clause back, and return to us with a realistic assessment of the sort of expenses a Parliamentary candidate can incur at an election. If we do not do this, it is because—let us be blunt about it—we are frightened of creating an impression on any individual elector that we are spending too much money. We are not prepared as a responsible House of Commons to say that this is the sort of money it is reasonable to spend in Parliamentary elections.
I therefore hope that the Committee will put real pressure on the Home Secretary to bring us, on Report or at some other stage, a completely new Clause on expenses, because everyone here, almost without exception, knows that we are not dealing with the realities of the situation. We are pretending that certain conditions exist that do not exist. We are pretending that the money is adequate when we know that it is not adequate. And we are doing so because we are frightened of appearing to be lush on the question of expenses.
I can understand how this picture grew up. Quite candidly, it was because the party opposite at that time had more difficulty in raising money than had the party I represent. Therefore it was quite right to limit the amount of expenses. Today that situation does not apply to anything like the same extent.
I believe that the party of hon. Members opposite now raises more money for political purposes than the party I repre-

sent. I am not speaking about the position nationally, but constituency-wise. Admittedly the Labour Party in my constituency does not raise as much as my party, but equally the Conservative Party in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West does not raise as much as the Labour Party there. If we take like with like, there is not much difference.
I plead with the Committee to take a realistic attitude to this problem. To put this provision in a Bill which has to last for 15 years or more would be completely dishonest in view of the problem that we know exists now and will exist in future. We should deal with it properly.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I support the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) because of my experience. Before I became a Member of Parliament I had been chairman of my local party. I know the difficulties I had to square my conscience with the bills and so on put forward as election expenses five, six or seven years ago. At the last election, I am glad to say, I had nothing to do with putting forward bills for expenditure.
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) who said that election addresses are not needed. In my constituency, even under the new rule, we are not allowed to spend as much as £10 per polling district and there are 115 villages. We need election addresses, because people want to know about candidates' proposals. At a following election the voters will refer to an old election address and ask what has been done about carrying out pledges given in it. We have to spend adequate amounts of money putting forward a case which every voter in the constituency can understand.
I do not entirely agree with the Amendments we are considering, because I think that a rural constituency with a fairly small number of constituents could be hit by these proposals. The whole Clause should be looked at again because we are not merely concerned with the next election, but with two or three elections ahead. The present suggestions are not adequate even for today, quite


apart from conditions as they will be in the future. Election agents have a terribly hard job to do. We do not want to lead them into doing something which we know they ought not to do.

Mr. Speed: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling), who made an admirable contribution to the debate. No one has yet spoken in favour of the Clause as it stands. Agents and voluntary workers have very important work to do. Professional people working for any party are grossly underpaid for their services. We are giving them an intolerable responsibility to have to manage their affairs carefully not only now, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr.van Straubenzee) said, even in four years' time.
It is easier to arrange one's expenses if one is fighting an election in part of a city or in a borough where one can get together with other candidates and there can be joint advertising and the communications generally are very much cheaper, but in a large constituency there is a considerable problem.
I hope that the hon. Member for Woolwich, West will excuse me for taking his point a stage further. We seem to be very concerned about the amount which can be specifically spent within a constituency—this should be looked at more realistically—yet no limitation is imposed on the extra-mural help which can come flooding in. This help can come from a group of industrialists supporting my party or from some millionaires helping the Labour Party. A considerable amount of propaganda is put out through the trade union and Cooperative movement, and not just through their political funds. Most of the trade union magazines are not paid for out of the political funds of the unions, but they carry a lot of propaganda for the Labour Party. I do not quarrel with that.
On the other hand, we are making life much more difficult for party agents and whole hosts of voluntary workers. On the other, we seem not to worry about what happens, sometimes on a very large scale, by way of massive propaganda put out by extra-mural bodies.
I therefore echo what everyone else who has taken part has said and hope that the Government will agree to look again at the Clause. Otherwise, many dedicated people in all parties will be put in a quite intolerable position.

Mr. W. Howie: I want to say practically nothing as briefly as possible. I add my small voice to the consensus which has enveloped the Chamber in the last twenty minutes and which was started by the admirable speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). A quick calculation, based on the figures given by the Government, leads me to believe that with an electorate of 60,000 the expenses allowed in my constituency will be about £1,125. As the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) said, this does not seem to be the sort of sum which will finance elections in the next ten years or so.
If we are to impose a limitation of this type now, we must impose a limitation which will last for a substantial number of years, because we do not want to be chopping and changing every other election or so. The Government should carefully consider the amount involved.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) made a valid point when he pointed to the difference between some county constituencies and others. We have heard of a county constituency which in a few years will have an electorate of 150,000. In the Highlands and Islands the electorates are small but the areas of constituencies are very large. In the Islands there is the additional problem of communications. The differential which is added to the basic £750, if it is based on the electorate, does not give such a constituency much of a chance.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention, not only to the weakness in the Government's proposals, but also to the weakness in the Opposition's official Amendment and in their unofficial Amendment. A complete re-thinking is required of this whole question of the financing of elections.
Hon. Members have mentioned the problem which faces the election agent in devising his return—I think that "devising" is the correct word—at the end of the election. It must not be forgotten


that, although if he has any sense a candidate does not look at this very closely——

It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gouriay): The Prime Minister's Motion.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Harper.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Howie: That is the first time that I have been interrupted by the Prime Minister.
I was saying that the candidate when dealing with the return of electoral expenses has to put his name to a bit of paper, and we are putting ourselves into a situation in which we tempt ourselves not to look at what we are signing.

Mr. Hamling: No doubt my hon. Friend has seen the election addresses issued by parties and has seen on election returns the alleged cost of those election addresses. If he knows the printing industry, no doubt he can cost those election addresses.

Mr. Howie: I am happy to say that I know nothing about the costs of the printing industry. I do not intend to be lured into that murky little channel into which my hon. Friend has invited me. I merely repeat that it is time for the Government to reconsider the whole nature of the proposition which they have put before us, not to think of the expenses at the next election or the election after that, but to devise a formula which will be appropriate for the next 10 or 15 years.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: I shall intervene only for a few moments. I should like to say first how much

I admired the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who, unfortunately, has left the Chamber. How wise he was to emphasise that the Socialist Party has no trouble about getting money, because it gets it already out of the co-ops, the trade unions and the compulsory political levy. Getting the money is not a problem for Socialists, but it is to the Opposition.
I do not often disagree with my own side, but I did not altogether agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Woking when he said that election addresses were no longer necessary.

Mr. van Straubenzee: My hon. and gallant Friend has left out the "ham"—Wokingham.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I apologise for my temporary lapse. But my hon. Friend said that election addresses were no longer necessary. I agree that they have never been necessary for hon. Members opposite, because in their case they contain only hate and lying promises. I do not say that an election address is necessary in my constituency, but election addresses are necessary in the majority of constituencies, for without them how could the electors know who is their candidate, what he looks like, and what is his policy? From that point of view, election addresses are essential.

Mr. Buchan: I will not follow the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) on the general principle that it is impossible to do so, but I want to take up one or two basic points which have arisen in the debate.
There has been one big omission from the discussions—the simple point that the figures in the Bill arose either out of Mr. Speaker's Conference or out of the local government conference. That must count for something. There appears to have been a general assumption that the figures are totally inadequate, but that assumption has been made without anyone asking what were the considerations which influenced Mr. Speaker's Conference and the local government conference. It has been argued that the figure of £30 in respect of local government expenses would have been altered if the local government conference had known what Mr. Speaker's Conference would recommend. It has been argued


that the figures put forward by Mr. Speaker's Conference, too, were too low. It is suggested that the local government conference would have chosen higher figures had they known what Mr. Speaker's Conference would recommend. In fact, they knew what Mr. Speaker's Conference had recommended, as the recommendations were known from the first interim Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The case has not been made on that aspect, therefore, although it is an aspect on which I had hoped to hear more views.
Turning to the figures for Parliamentary elections, my hon. Friends the Members for Luton (Mr. Howie) and Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) said that they were not realistic figures. But the Amendment affects only county constituencies and does not affect my hon. Friends' constituencies. Secondly, having picked up the idea from hon. Members opposite, my hon. Friends expressed views about the problems of trying to keep their election expenses within the limits——

Mr. Hamling: I have not studied this problem only in the last half-hour. I have studied it for years. The views which I put forward tonight were views which I put forward to Mr. Speaker's Conference. Unfortunately, the Conference was back in the coach-and-buggy stage.

Mr. Buchan: That was not the point which I was making, and I will deal with that later. The argument is that in election after election the imposition of this figure has led to strains upon election agents who have to keep their expenses within these limits. It is said that more money would get rid of the strains, tensions and contrivances.
But it would do nothing of the sort; it would raise the level at which those tensions and contrivances would begin again. If the amount were raised, those who could would still spend to the limit, and would still have the same kind of problem to face. I do not believe that there is any hon. Member who could not spend treble or 10 times as much as any figure that was set, and would want to do so. He must be confined to a stated amount. I could spend 10 times what I am allowed. I would write election addresses every day if I could. The purpose of the limitation on expenditure

is to bring equity into the situation. If we raised the figure there would still be the same kind of tensions and problems at that figure, but with the difference that those who could more easily afford it could spend it, and those who had less could not.

Mr. Speed: The hon. Gentleman should realise, even if his advisers do not, that we must raise the money in our constituency before we spend it. In my party, and I am sure in his, there is a fixed limit on what a candidate can give towards his party for expenses. It is therefore nonsense to talk about 10 times as much. Most constituencies cannot raise that sort of money.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has not taken the point. I recognise how much the individual candidate is restricted. I appreciate that it is said that parties must strain to raise running expenses. But hon. Members must not strain my imagination too much. I could compare what would come in in some constituencies in Scotland with the amount that could be raised in a political campaign in better-off areas, or where there are better-off parties. I make no distinction between the two parties here. Hon. Members Opposite seem very sensitive on this point, but I make no suggestion as to which party might be the wealthier. This principle is introduced in order to bring in equity in political propaganda, publicity and expenditure. If we set too high a ceiling it would benefit the wealthier candidate, who would no doubt be representative of the wealthier party.
We should look at the figure with more care. It came forward from Mr. Speaker's Conference. So far as I know, no one has argued against it, except to say that he would like more money. No one has stated the case against the figure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West spoke about the censorious nature of this, as regards local candidates. I accept that. It is designed to be censorius precisely in order to bring equity into the situation. My hon. Friend was correct to say that the really serious thing may be large expenditure on national advertising. Perhaps we should think about that, but we cannot do it under the Clause.
The Amendment affects only county constituencies; it would change the basis of calculating the permitted maximum of candidates' expenses in the county constituency. Let us take an electorate of 40,000. Under the 1949 Act, candidates can at present spend £783 in a constituency of 40,000. With the permitted maximum under the Bill they could spend £1,083. The permitted maximum under the Amendment would be £1,000. So for an electorate of 40,000 the figure would have dropped by £83. For a constituency of 60,000 the figure would be the same under the Bill as under the Amendment. At 80,000 the respective figures would be £1,416 under the Bill and £1,500 under the Amendment. So that is an increase of £84.
10.15 p.m.
What is the conclusion? The proposal is to allow a little less expenditure under the Bill in county constituencies with small electorates and a little more in county constituencies with large electorates. But none of this is related to the needs of the constituency. The hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) would drop considerably under this concept, but his area covers many thousands of square miles. Similarly, the production costs of so much material balances out in every constituency no matter the size. Rents for rooms are the same, and costs of blocks for photographs are the same. It averages out. One of the effects would be that a county constituency with a small electorate but a large area might find itself with much the same expenses but a smaller amount than another constituency So the Amendment will not do. It does not solve the problem which it sets out to deal with.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Is it the hon. Gentleman's argument that there ought to be no differentiation between different types of constituencies?

Mr. Buchan: Indeed, not. I agree that the best concept is a flat rate with amounts added on. We accept that there should be a flat amount first. That is accepted in the Bill and the Amendment. I accept that it should be related to the number of people in the constituency. The point is that when one alters the

balance in this way one may then begin to bring in strange results, like the one I gave. That is why it might be better to keep to the first proportion.

Mr. Allason: The hon. Gentleman has given figures up to an 80,000 constituency. Does he realise that many constituencies are far in excess of that figure? What we object to is the fact that £1,000 is given for a 30,000 constituency, but for a 150,000 constituency—five times as big—only twice as much is given, £2,000.

Mr. Buchan: If the Amendment had been a little more scientific and had tried to work out a balance between the flat amount and the multiplied amount, there might have been something in it, but the Amendment will not do it, and so I must ask the Committee to reject it.
I am a little confused about Amendment No. 14, which has not been discussed. I wonder whether I am right in thinking that it is to be moved separately.

Mr. Hogg: I think the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It was discussed, and I believe it is to be separately divided upon.

Mr. Buchan: While we have a good conceit of ourselves north of the Border, I think it might be more appropriate if I left it to a colleague of mine from the Home Office to discuss that point.

Mr. Hogg: I hope the Committee will forgive me if I say that I am not happy about the speech to which we have just listened. I do not wish to put this forward from any party point of view.
The two Amendments upon which it is proposed to divide relate to local government and not Parliamentary elections, although the Amendments for discussion have properly included, because of the selection of the Chair, Parliamentary elections and the discussion has very largely centred upon Parliamentary expenses rather than local government expenses. I think that this has been a convenient arrangement, but the debate came as something of a surprise to me. I think that it came also as something of a surprise to the hon. Gentleman. I think that the House has shown unmistakably greater wisdom about this than either of the two party machines, and for this reason I am unhappy about his reply.
The view of the Conservative Party machine was, in the main—and I say this frankly in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples), who is a vice chairman of the party—that the Parliamentary election expenses were adequately allowed for by Mr. Speaker's Conference. I think that it has emerged quite unmistakably in the debate that, in that respect, the machine was probably making a mistake. It happened to coincide with the view of the Labour Party machine and with Mr. Speaker's Conference, but one cannot disregard the speeches in this debate, which have come from both sides of the Committee. They have come from the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) and others, including some of my hon. Friends who have these vast swollen constituencies which, however, we hope will, in common decency, be reduced by redistribution before we go to the polls. We hope so, although we have some suspicion of the Government's intentions.
But the speeches have not been confined to hon. Members representing swollen constituencies. There was, if I may say so, a very wise speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Clover) which supported what the hon. Member for Woolwich, West said. I have always been concerned about this aspect of the matter. The Under-Secretary of Sate, it seems to me, wholly misunderstood the purpose of our election law and its effect. It is not designed to save candidates or parties money. That is not its purpose. It is not its purpose to stop people from spending legitimate a mounts of money on communication.
The purpose of the election law is twofold, and it is vital to the cleanliness of our elections. It is a law in favour of the purity and integrity of elections and not against extravagance. Two reasons underlie the law. Before it was passed in one form at the beginning of the century, for the first time, two evils occurred. The first was escalation of unnecessary expense and the other was cheating and bribery under cover of legitimate election expense.
It is not so very long ago. I remember that when I was Member for Oxford a very old man came to me. He was in extreme old age. He said to me, "I am the man in the moon". I said, "What do

you mean?" It turned out that he was the man who in the last part of the nineteenth century paid the bribes which caused Oxford to be disfranchised for seven years as a result of corruption in that constituency. All this was carried on under cover of the election expenses. We must stick to our control of expenditure because we want to prevent corrupt practices and cheating under cover of legitimate expenses and to prevent escalation with that end in view.

Mr. Buchan: Mr. Buchan rose——

Mr. Hogg: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to get on for the moment. I must try to apprehend him of this matter because I hope to get him to take back to the Government a little of the wisdom which the House has shown.
There is an equal and opposite danger. If we put the level too low we lead to twisted accounts. I got into great trouble in the House about a year ago because I suggested that this could be said of American presidential elections. There was trouble on points of order about whether I was attacking the head of a friendly country. Nevertheless, this is the trouble the Americans have fallen into. They have put the level so low that everyone knows that, except in the case of the Head of the American State, every other election expense is twisted from top to bottom. This cannot lead to an uncorrupt political life.
The hon. Member for Woolwich, West said quite plainly that the figures for the maximum allowable expenses in Parliamentary elections, if they have not already reached that level, will before there is another Speaker's Conference. That is a very serious statement, and I think that the Under-Secretary has made too light of it.

Mr. Hamling: I would be prepared to say now that an awful lot of expenses filed in the last five years have been "fiddled".

Mr. Hogg: I am not disputing that. I am fortunate in representing a constituency with the relatively small electorate of about 50,000. Therefore, I am probably affected by it less than other hon. Members.
We face this situation. When my father first went into public life, which is the


best part of 50 years ago, fighting a Parliamentary election cost something more or less than £1,000 That is about what it costs to this day as a maximum. That must indicate either that there has been a fundamental change in the needs of communication or that something is being hidden about the expenses incurred. That must follow, because we know that in my father's day the £ was worth two or three times what it is today. As the hon. Gentleman says, if it has not already happened, it is the case that it is about to become the truth. That is very serious, and I am glad that it has been said so frankly. But I think that the Under-Secretary has failed to cope with the seriousness of the case which has been made.

Mr. Buchan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that there were two basic reasons for it. One was unnecessary extravagance and the other was corruption. Unnecessary extravagance, I think, can be put on one side. In fighting an election, it may not be good for a candidate to spend too much money, but it is nothing to worry about too much. I accept his second reason about corruption. But is there not a third element in that an extension of democracy is involved, where a sum is laid down to provide equity of treatment for the poorer and the better-off sections of the community? If the figure is too high, it benefits the richer group. If it is within the means of all sections, there will be straining and tensions at that new level, whatever it is.

Mr. Hogg: That is precisely the case that I am seeking to controvert. I do not misunderstand him. I do not agree with him. It is wrong historically. Historically, the expense of an election was greater than it has been in recent years. The Under-Secretary has wholly misunderstood the nature of contemporary elections in putting it forward now.
I did not say that unnecessary extravagance was bad. I said that escalation was inevitable. The law is designed to prevent popular expenditures on items such as bands, where a situation may develop in which each candidate has to indulge in what is fundamentally a valueless expenditure from the point of view of communication. However, from the point

of view of democracy, to which the Under-Secretary appealed, I would come to the opposite conclusion to him.
The great political parties—and in terms of what I am about to say the Liberal Party can also be described as a great political party in that it has considerable funds—we have access to radio, television and to various other means of mass communication. But a party or an individual who has not got these resources may wish, for that very reason, to spend money on communication. We have to cater for people of all kinds—new parties, new individuals. The hon. Member for Woolwich, West seemed to say, with great force, that even with all the advantages which a great national political party has, the agent is put in a position where he has to grapple with his conscience to put forward an adequate election expense.
I think that the Under-Secretary's answer has been totally inadequate. He need not think that I am trying to take it out of him. I am trying to make him see what the Committee has been saying to him and to take it back to the Secretary of State and the Cabinet. We are not reproaching the Government for making a mistake. The two party machines have been agreed about it up to this point. The Cabinet only took over the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. We are not trying to lambaste them for doing it. We should only make ourselves ridiculous if we did. But when Parliament has said something significant in the course of a debate, it is up to the Government to recognise that something has happened, and I am not happy that the Under-Secretary has recognised what has happened.
I will not go on with the subjects on which we will be dividing, which are to do with local elections, but I hope that this debate will serve a purpose much wider than the Amendments. I hope that by the time we get to Report Stage the Government will have looked into this and will give us their considered view on what has been said.

Mr. Hamling: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been temperate—for him. But does he agree that in fact the votes we have tonight are purely academic in the context of the debate?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that they are purely academic. As I said on Second Reading, we take the view that the maxima allowed for local government are disproportionately small, even for parliamentary elections. But I accept from the hon. Gentleman, who has said that I am temperate, for me—he is complimentary, for him—that the issues raised in

the debate are far more important than the questions we are about to divide upon, and I hope that the Government will take them seriously.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 163.

Division No. 13.]
AYES
[10.33 p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Pardoe, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hawkins, Paul
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Percival, Ian


Biggs-Davison, John
Hiley, Joseph
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Hill, J. E. B.
Powell, Rt. Hn. Enoch


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Hogg Rt. Hn. Quintin
Pym, Francis


Body, Richard
Holland, Philip
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Hooson, Emlyn
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Braine, Bernard
Hornby, Richard
Royle, Anthony


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. Sir Walter
Hutchison Michael Clark
Scott, Nicholas


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Iremonger, T. L.
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Sharples, Richard


Bullus, Sir Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Silvester, Frederick


Chichester-Clark, R.
Kitson, Timothy
Sinclair, Sir George


Clegg, Walter
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)


Costain, A. P.
Lane David
Speed, Keith


Crouch, David
Loveys, W. H.
Stainton, Keith


Currie, G. B. H.
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Stodart, Anthony


Dance, James
McMaster, Stanley
Summers, Sir Spencer


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Maddan, Martin
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Marten, Neil
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Drayson, G. B.
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Waddington, David


Errington, Sir Eric
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Walters, Dennis


Eyre, Reginald
Miscampbell, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Farr, John
Monro, Hector
Weatherill, Bernard


Gibson-Watt, David
Montgomery, Fergus
Webster, David


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
More, Jasper
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Glover, Sir Douglas
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Goodhart, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, Raymond
Murton, Oscar
Wright, Esmond


Grant-Ferris, R.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Neave, Airey



Gurden, Harold
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hamling, William
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Bradley, Tom
Dunnett, Jack


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)


Alldritt, Walter
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Eadie, Alex


Allen, Scholefield
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Edwards, William (Merioneth)


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Ellis, John


Armstrong, Ernest
Buchan, Norman
Ennals, David


Ashton, J. W.
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Carmichael, Neil
Fernyhough, E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Chapman, Donald
Finch, Harold


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Coe, Denis
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Barnett, Joel
Coleman, Donald
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Baxter, William
Conlan, Bernard
Ford, Ben


Beaney, Alan
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Forrester, John


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Fowler, Gerry


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Freeson, Reginald


Binns, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Galpern, Sir Myer


Bishop, E. S.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Garrett, W. E.


Blackburn, F.
Delargy, Hugh
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Dempsey, James
Gregory, Arnold


Boardman H. (Leigh)
Dewar, Donald
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)


Booth, Albert
Dobson, Ray
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Doig, Peter
Hannan, William




Harper, Joseph
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Richard, Ivor


Haseldine, Norman
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Hattersley, Roy
Mapp, Charles
Rose, Paul


Heffer, Eric S.
Marks, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Homer, John
Marquand, David
Sheldon, Robert


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Mendelson, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Mikardo, Ian
Silverman, Julius


Howie, W.
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Small, William


Huckfield, Leslie
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Snow, Julian


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Spriggs, Leslie


Hunter, Adam
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hynd, John
Neal, Harold
Swingler, Stephen


Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Newens, Stan
Thornton, Ernest


Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (Kiston-on-Hull, W.)
Oakes, Gordon
Urwin, T. W.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
O'Malley, Brian
Varley, Eric G.


Jones Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Oram, Albert E.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Kenyon Clifford
Orme, Stanley
Watkins, David (Consett)


Lawson, George
Oswald, Thomas
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon and Radnor)


Leadbitter, Ted
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Wellbeloved, James


Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Palmer, Arthur
Wilkins, W. A.


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Williams, Alan Lee (Homchurch)


Lomas, Kenneth
Park, Trevor
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


McCann, John
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Mackenzie Gregor (Rutherglen)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Mackintosh, John P.
Pentland, Norman
Woof, Robert


Maclennan, Robert
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)



McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McNamara, J. Kevin
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Mr. Walter Harrison and


MacPherson, Malcolm
Probert, Arthur
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Rees, Merlyn

Amendment proposed: No. 14, in page 6, line 37, at end insert:

(3) Notwithstanding the provision made in Clause 8(1)(b), for the Greater London Council elections held subsequent to the coming into force of the one member electoral areas the maximum amount of election expenses shall be £200 together with an additional Is. Od. for every four entries in the register of electors

to be used in the election and for any less number of entries above a multiple of four.—[Mr. Sharples.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 122, Noes 161.

Division No. 14.]
AYES
[10.40p.m.


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Maddan, Martin


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Goodhart, Philip
Maude, Angus


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. &amp; Fhm)
Gower, Raymond
Mawby, Ray


Biggs-Davison, John
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Black, Sir Cyril
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Gurden, Harold
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Hamling, William
Munro, Hector


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Montgomery, Fergus


Braine, Bernard
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
More, Jasper


Brewis, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Hawkins, Paul
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heald, Rt. Ho. Sir Lionel
Murton, Oscar


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&amp;M)
Hiley, Joseph
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hill, J. E. B.
Neave, Airey


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland, Philip
Onslow, Cranley


Clegg, Walter
Hooson, Emlyn
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Costain, A. P.
Hornby, Richard
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Crouch, David
Hunt, John
Pardoe, John


Currie, G. B. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Iremonger, T. L.
Percival, Ian


Dance, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Pounder, Rafton


Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Pym, Francis


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Kitson, Timothy
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Drayson, G. B.
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eden, Sir John
Lane, David
Royle, Anthony


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Loveys, W. H.
Russell, Sir Ronald


Errington, Sir Eric
Lubbock, Eric
Scott, Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
McNair-Wilson, Patrick
Scott-Hopkins, James


Farr, Jahn
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Sharples, Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
McMaster, Stanley
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)




Silvester, Frederick
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Sinclair, Sir George
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Donald (Dudley)


Smith, John (London &amp; W'minster)
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speed, Keith
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Wright, Esmond


Stainton, Keith
Waddington, David
Wylie, N. R.


Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Walters, Dennis



Stodart, Anthony
Ward, Dame Irene
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Summers, Sir Spencer
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Webster, David
Mr. Anthony Grant.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Forrester, John
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Fowler, Gerry
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Alldritt, Walter
Freeson, Reginald
Neal, Harold


Allen, Scholefield
Galpern, Sir Myer
Newens, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)


Armstrong, Ernest
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Oakes, Gordon


Ashton, J. W.
Gregory, Arnold
O'Malley, Brian


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Oram, Albert E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orbach, Maurice


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hannan, William
Orme, Stanley


Barnett Joel
Harper, Joseph
Oswald, Thomas


Baxter, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Beaney, Alan
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Benn, Rt. FM. Anthony Wedgwood
Haseldine, Norman
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Hattersley, Roy
Park, Trevor


Binns, John
Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. S.
Horner, John
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Pentland, Norman


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Booth, Albert
Howie, W.
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Huckfield, Leslie
Probert, Arthur


Bradley, Tom
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, John
Richard, Ivor


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow. Proven)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb gh)
Rose, Paul


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Sheldon, Robert


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton,N.E.)



Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)



Carmichael, Neil
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Chapman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Silverman, Julius


Coe, Denis
Lawson, George
Small, William


Coleman, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Snow, Julian


Conlan, Bernard
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steele, Thomas Dunbartonshire, W.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Swingler, Stephen


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Thornton, Ernest


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mackintosh, John P.
Tinn, James


Delargy, Hugh
Maclennan, Robert
Urwin, T. W.


Dempsey, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Varley, Eric G.


Dewar, Donald
McNamara, J. Kevin
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dobson, Ray
MacPherson, Malcolm
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Doig, Peter
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Dunnett, Jack
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Watkins, Tudor Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Wellbeloved, James


Eadie, Alex
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Wilkins, W. A.




Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Mapp, Charles
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Ellis, John
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Ennals, David
Marquand, David
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Woof, Robert


Fernyhough, E.
Mendelson, John



Finch, Harold
Mikardo, Ian
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Mr. John McCann and


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Mr. J. D. Concannon.


Ford, Ben

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am concerned about the method of calculating the total sum permissible as election expenses. Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended in Recommendation No. 33 that it should be made the duty of the returning officer to give public notice in each constituency of the legal maximum of the candidates' election expenses. However, in the Government White Paper that recommendation was rejected.
In asking the Government to reconsider that rejection—or, at any rate, if they adhere to the rejection to meet the practical difficulty involved—I wonder whether it is reasonable to expect each election agent separately to calculate the total maximum sum permitted? Mr. Speaker's Conference recommended that the young voter who comes of voting age during the year should be able to vote on any polling day held on or after his—in this case eighteenth—birthday. It is clear that nobody can know the number of voters and calculate the sum, if it is to be based on those who are able to vote, merely from the names on the register. That sum cannot be calculated until polling day is known. If the matter is left to election agents, each one must plough through the register to discover the names of all the young persons, the Y voters, who will qualify on that day.
There are various ways of getting round this difficulty. I beg the Government not to leave the responsibility for deciding this figure on individual election agents. Difficulty could arise if, having made these various calculations, the agents do not arrive at the same total. Can we have a simple means of finding the figure?

Mr. Lane: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill). This is a matter of great practical importance to agents. At present the wording of Clause 8 is ambiguous and open to either interpretation mentioned by my hon. Friend, whether it is the total on the original register or the necessarily smaller number of voters entitled to vote during the year.

Mr. Hamling: I ask the Under-Secretary to recommend to his right hon. Friend to take the whole Clause back. The explanations we have had about it have been completely inadequate, not only about the expenses but on the failure of the Clause to deal with other forms of expenditure which are not controlled at all and have far less bearing on local democracy than expenses in a constituency. We should give more freedom to expression of democracy in the constituencies and control the large national expenditures which have no relation to the democratic ideas of the country.

Sir Gerald Nabarro: Before the hon. Member sits down—[Hon. Members: "He has sat down."]—will he explain what he means by other forms of expenditure? Does he allude to expenditure on television broadcasts? If so, how would he propose to regulate that? Does he intend that the television companies should restrict appearances by my hon. Friends and me on television broadcasts?

The Deputy Chairman (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Mr. Buchan.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose——

The Deputy Chairman: Order. I called the Minister, Mr. Buchan. If the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) does not seek to answer the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South should not put the question again.

Sir G. Nabarro: I wanted to ask the hon. Member to explain his comments because without such explanation they would be quite valueless in such general terms.

Mr. Buchan: I should like to deal with the serious points which have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) made a valid point, although it does not altogether fall within this Clause, note will be taken of it. It is in fact covered because the calculation is done not on the electors but on the entries.
This will lead to a slight discrepancy between the actual amount entered and the number who vote, but it will create


no difficulty for the returning officer. Each entry on the register, even though it may not entitle the person to a vote at the election because he is not yet of voting age, will be considered. The maximum of a candidate's expenses can be determined the moment the register is published. There would be serious disadvantages if the maximum fluctuated according to the number of electors.
I hope that with this assurance we can have the Clause.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that explanation. It is particularly agreeable because it will mean that there will be a slight marginal excess of expenditure permitted, which in a large rural area such as my constituency will be helpful. An American publicist said that he would not even advertise a new type of pet food for Parliamentary expenses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: With your indulgence, Mr. Gourlay, and the permission of the Committee, may I ask the Government how far they intend to take our proceedings tonight?

Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have made reasonable progress during the day and there has been a debate in which all parts of the House have participated. I think that what we should aim to do, with the agreement of the Committee, is to consider Clause 9, on broadcasting, which is of great importance. Clause 10 is very small and discusion on Clause 11 would not take long. I suggest, if it is for the convenience of the Committee, that we should see what happens on Clause 9 and then perhaps we could come to a firmer decision.

Clause 9

BROADCASTING DURING ELECTIONS

11.0 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 7, line 36, leave out 'candidate' and insert 'person'.
This is a drafting Amendment. The Clause is intended to regulate broadcasts in which candidates take part. The

restrictions of the Clause are stated to apply
before or during a parliamentary or local government election".
So the restrictions are intended to cover persons who intend to seek election, even though the time has not been reached where a writ has been issued.
Unfortunately, the use of "candidate" in line 36 on page 7 attracts the definition in Section 103 of the 1949 Act which, in the case of Parliamentary elections, distinguishes between successful candidates, who are treated as having been candidates at all times, and unsuccessful candidates, who are treated as candidates only from the moment when, after the dissolution or vacancy giving rise to the election, they declare themselves to be candidates or are nominated.
It would seem to be clear that the restrictions of the Clause should apply equally to successful and unsuccessful candidates; and this can be achieved by the Amendment. Without the Amendment, it would not be possible to say whether there had been a breach of the requirement before the results of the election were made known.

Mr. David Steel: How does the Attorney-General propose to define the period before the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers? How far in advance of an election does the right hon. and learned Gentleman visualise this operating?

The Attorney-General: It would cover the whole period. This would last for the whole time, including prior to the election period itself.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lubbock: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
I return to the point which I raised on Second Reading, when I received a profoundly unsatisfactory answer from the Secretary of State for Scotland, who told me that the subsection had been introduced as a result of a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I could not recall such a recommendation at the time. Since Second Reading I


have refreshed my memory, and I can find no such recommendation.
As regards the use of broadcasting at elections, Mr. Speaker's Conference said that broadcasting should be exempted from the provisions relating to election expenses in Section 63 of the 1949 Act. The words which the Secretary of State used about fairness in broadcasts which take place during an election do not appear anywhere in the Report of Mr. Speaker's Conference, nor, indeed, in that of the Home Office Advisory Committee. This provision has suddenly appeared from nowhere without any warning and, as far as I am aware, without any consultation with the broadcasting authorities.
Did the Attorney-General consult the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority before this subsection was introduced into the Bill? My opinion is that it has been done in a stealthy and underhand manner without giving an opportunity for those who will be affected by the Clause to express their views.
The Clause creates a new illegal practice which is very vaguely defined and which consists of favouring
any of the candidates taking part
in a broadcast. The illegal practice may be committed by
any person who in managing or taking part in the management of the item
does this act.
This is extremely broad, and my next question to the Attorney-General is why it should be thought necessary to introduce this provision when both the B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act already require the observance of fair treatment of candidates in broadcasts at election times. We have had the B.B.C. Charter and Television Act for a number of years now, and no one has ever accused television interviewers or producers of unfairly discriminating against a candidate. I do not see why it is necesary to introduce this provision, unless the Attorney-General is following the example of the Prime Minister and pursuing a vendetta against the B.B.C.—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may groan, but why otherwise is this provision being introduced at this stage? [Interruption.] I prefer to hear the answer from the Attorney-General and not from the hon.
Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and other hon. Members below the Gang-way opposite.

Mr. John Mendelson: Before the hon. Gentleman drags in silly allegations, he had better wait for the answer.

Mr. Lubbock: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has got to talk about; so far as I am aware, he has not taken part in any of the debates this afternoon.

Mr. Mendelson: I have been here all day.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Gentleman may have been here all day, but he has not taken part in any of the debates. An intervention like that is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman, and unless he intends to make a speech he would be better to keep quiet and let the Committee get on with its business.

Mr. Mendelson: I am saying to the hon. Gentleman, and now I want to put it on record, that this is a serious debate about a serious matter. He was asking a serious question and I objected to his silly dragging-in of the Prime Minister in this serious debate.

Mr. Lubbock: It was serious until the hon. Gentleman intervened. I was asking a straightforward question and I reiterate it. Has this provision anything to do with the dispute which is being pursued, as we all know, and it is useless for the hon. Gentleman to deny it, between the Prime Minister and the B.B.C.? [Interruption.] It is no good the hon. Gentleman clucking like a disappointed hen in the background. I am putting a straight question to the Attorney-General. [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members opposite find so funny. I thought that the hon. Member for Penistone was asking me to treat the debate seriously. That is what I am trying to do, if the levity of hon. Members opposite can be suspended for a few moments.
I hope that hon. Members will take a serious interest in the Amendment and the effect of the Clause on those who take part in broadcasts, or who are concerned with their management or production. Has the Attorney-General had any representations from the broadcasting authorities since the production of the Clause, or from those who might be


held to be guilty of an illegal practice if the Clause goes through in its present form? Those to whom I have spoken and from whom I have taken advice on this subject have expressed the gravest anxiety, and it has even been suggested to me by a person concerned with these broadcasts that, if the Clause goes on the Statute Book unamended, there will not be any election broadcasts at the next general election, because the interviewers who would otherwise have taken part in them will not dare to chance their arm in view of this extremely vaguely worded and broad Clause which could catch them as being guilty of an illegal practice purely because they had accidentally and with no ill intention favoured one candidate.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that clearly a matter of ten seconds more given to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) over others taking part in a broadcast with him would not constitute an offence. I am going to ask what would. Would it be twenty seconds or thirty? How will the courts interpret a provision as vaguely worded as this? It is, as I pointed out to the Secretary of State for Scotland on Second Reading, difficult when ore is on a programme with the right hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Ouintin Hogg) to get a word in edgeways, so it is likely that he may succeed in getting more of the attention of the interviewer than the Secretary of State for Scotland or me, if we were appearing. Then Robin Day, or whoever it was, would be guilty of an illegal practice under the Clause.
I do not know what the penalty would be, because I have not seen under Clause 9 how provision is made for dealing with an offender under subsection (2). I would ask the Attorney-General where there is such provision. I beg the Attorney-General to appreciate that there is the greatest anxiety among those concerned with the conduct or management of television programmes. Perhaps there has not been an opportunity for them all——

Sir G. Nabarro: Not only those concerned with the management or conduct, tut those unfortunate politicians who, as candidates, take part in elections and broadcasts. They are equally culpable if

offences are proved against them. It is offensive in that sense to many hon. Members who will be offering themselves, God willing, for re-election in the next election.

Mr. Lubbock: He is perfectly safe, because it says
taking part in the management of the item".
It does not say that the candidate would be guilty of an illegal practice if he is showing favour to somebody rather than to somebody else. It is accepted that the candidate shows favour to himself.

Sir G. Nabarro: I do not. I am completely impartial.

Mr. Lubbock: The hon. Member, we all know, is a shrinking violet who allows other people to have the lion's share of a television programme in which he appears. The hon. Member should not worry himself about the Clause. He should concern himself about the management and especially those conducting interviews. This Clause will place them in an impossible situation. I appeal to the Government to take this away and have proper consultations with the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television Authority and the programme companies and come back with something more precisely drafted, if what they require is to ensure fairness in these programmes.
The B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act already carry out the intentions of Parliament in ensuring that favour is not shown to one candidate rather than another. I would rather trust the good sense and fairness of interviewers and television producers than put this on the Statute Book.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I would reinforce the points made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) and emphasize strongly to the Government that there is deep apprehension on the part of responsible and moderate non-political television producers as to the precise effect of Clause 9. Only last evening I had a long conversation with a gentleman who produced "Panorama" for BBC and "This Week" for ITV. He was expressing precisely the fears and apprehensions which have arisen. It is important that one


should look at the wording of this Clause and see whether it tackles the problem which has to be faced: the relationship of television and politics, not just at the next election, but perhaps for the next decade or two. The apprehensions felt by producers and those taking part in television programmes may or may not be justified. Perhaps on a strict legal interpretation of the whole Clause it might be possible to convince a lawyer that there would be no lack of impartiality and no favouritism if they produced a programme in the same way as they have in the past. Nevertheless, the fear exists and the Government should try to allay it before the next General Election.
11.15 p.m.
The background to the Clause is that both the television authorities—the I.T.A. and the B.B.C.—already have imposed on them obligations of impartiality and fairness. Over a fairly long period, there are ups and downs in the relation to each authority and in re-relation to each party from time to time, but on the whole they have maintained a fair standard of impartiality and fairness, at least in their domestic political coverage. I say nothing about the way in which they handle international events. But by and large over the years both parties have had a fair crack of the whip from the television authorities.
Two matters particularly worry people in the business. The first, which concerns subsection (1) is whether an idiot candidate, a sham candidate who refused to take part in a television broadcast could not only shut out other candidates in his constituency, but, if he chose to stand in Bexley, Huyton or Devon, North might keep the leaders of the three main political parties totally off the air during a General Election campaign.

Sir G. Nabarro: Worcestershire, South.

Mr. Richard: I was not yet putting forward the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) as the leader of the Conservative Party. I am happy to say that I have taken no part in the leadership squabbles on the other side.
The television authorities are seriously worried that if, for example, an English

Nationalist candidate stood in Huyton they would be prevented from showing the Prime Minister making speeches not only in Huyton but in London, Manchester, Birmingham and anywhere else. He would therefore be effectively shut out of the whole campaign. That is clearly not envisaged by the Clause, but the television authorities are worried about it, and the Government should consider the matter.
The other main difficulty is posed by subsection (2), which the Amendment would delete. It imposes a new and additonal obligation on the television producers and those concerned in the management of programmes not to favour any of the candidates. Elections are touchy things, as all hon. Members will agree. They will also agree that those engaged in elections are liable to be extraordinarily touchy when considering whether they have received fair treatment at the hands of the media of mass communications. I can imagine nothing more encouraging to electoral neurosis than that everybody who appears on television in the course of the election campaign should be entitled to sit down at home to watch and weight up whether favour has or has not been shown to him.
I should like to quote a paragraph from last weekend's Sunday Times, in which a lawyer was reported as saying:
In a climate like that,"—
in an election campaign—
I don't think you could possibly produce a broadcast without one of the candidates complaining. How can you define' favouritism? Is it using one more light bulb to film one candidate; is it photographing one candidate kissing two babies and his rival kissing only one baby? The situation could become impossible for the producers.
That is a real fear which the Government should consider again, and I appeal to them, moderately to do so.
It is all very well for us, two or 2½ years from the next General Election campaign, to decide that taking favouritism out of it would be a good thing. It would be very difficult in the heat of an election battle to try to make the subsection, which I do not find very happily drafted, in any sense enforceable. Further, through this provision it is illegal for a candidate to agree to appear in a broadcast made before the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers. It


has even been suggested that if this is passed in this form not only would the other dangers arise but it might even shut out the television authorities from showing pictures of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition or any of the party leaders handing in their nomination papers. If this is a possible construction—I think it is not straining the rules of interpretation too much to get that position—it is something at which the Government must look again.
Finally, this is a sort of Bill that Parliament does not consider very often. It has been said that we shall be lucky if we consider the representation of the people again for a decade or two decades. Television will, clearly, play an increasing, not diminishing, part in politics in the years to come. Whether one approves of it or disapproves is neither here nor there. It will play an increasing part. One has only to look at the way in the United States it is becoming increasingly intrusive into politics and a part of election campaigns, how the party leaders have to appear on television, and the way in which one's "image on the box" is becoming very important to candidates.
Since television will play an increasing part, I wish the Government had thought about this a little more coolly and tried to grapple with the impact that it will have on politics in the next decade or so and regularise it sensibly.
By and large, my approach is very similar to that of the hon. Member for Orpington. I would impose, if they are not imposed specifically already, obligations of impartiality and fairness on the television authorities. Having done that, I would let them alone to get on with the job of reporting domestic politics. Let us try to keep allegations of whether one or the other has been favoured out of this sort of thing.
If I might make not too pointed an appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I hope the Government will look at the wording of the subsection again and also think seriously about the merits of the issue.

Sir G. Nabarro: This is one of those rare occasions when I find myself substantially in agreement with the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) and the Liberal Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock).

[Interruption.] Did the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) wish to intervene at such an early stage in my speech? If so, will he rise and do so? No, the hon. Gentleman remains sedentary.
The fact is that the provision in subsection (2) is utterly unenforceable and unprovable and, in my judgment, super-fluous. In any event, the Secretary of State for Scotland was wrong on Second Reading when he pronounced in relation to the valid and valuable point made by the hon. Member for Orpington:
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Orpington about how to adjudicate fairness in respect of a political broadcast during an election, we are trying to follow through a recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that there should be fairness and that it should be seen to be fair. This obligation is laid on those conducting these broadcasts or television programmes. If they do not meet the obligation they might be guilty of an illegal practice under the Bill.—(Official Report. 18th November, 1968; Vol. 773, c. 1027.]
In fact, Mr. Speaker's Conference did nothing of the sort. What Mr. Speaker's Conference said, and I quote from paragraph 37 on page 7 of Cmnd. 3550, was:
Exemptions from provisions relating to election expenses
35. Broadcasting should be exempted from the provisions relating to election expenses in section 63 of the Representation of the People Act 1949; but a programme covering an election in a particular constituency and including candidates in that constituency should not be broadcast unless all the candidates have agreed to take part personally and are given an equal opportunity to state their views.

Mr. Hamling: That is rubbish.

Sir G. Nabarro: In practice, that cannot be borne out. Take, for example, Independent Television in the Midlands and the General Election of 1966. Midlands Television covered a very large number of constituencies; about 100 constituencies were covered by this particular form of Independent Television.
The Labour Party was asked to nominate their spokesman for a party political broadcast, and the Tories were asked to nominate their spokesman through the party machine. The Labour Party chose, not unnaturally, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), then Home Secretary and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Tory Party chose, not unnaturally, the candidate for Worcestershire, South.
I do not know why the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) is jeering. My party did not choose me for fun. My party chose me because I clobber the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and indeed I did clobber him and silenced him in appropriate fashion.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Mr. Chairman, is the right hon. Gentleman now about to break——

Hon. Members: Hon. Gentleman, never right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Huckfield: Is the hon. Gentleman now about to break into his commercial for natural gas?

Sir G. Nabarro: That is characteristically flatulent. I am quoting an exact case of a television broadcast during an election a few days before polling day. Whatever were the reasons, and I do not attribute any valid reasons this evening for the particular choice by the political parties, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of today was the Labour Party candidate on this election broadcast and I was the Tory Party candidate, for reasons best known to the parties. I did not advocate my own participation in this broadcast.
The selection of questions was very important. The Chancellor of the Exchequer happens to sit for the constituency in Britain which manufactures the largest number of commercial motor vehicles in any constituency in Britain. I happen to sit for a lush and productive agricultural and horticultural constituency.
Now the questions on the television broadcast were beamed to industrial matters. There was not a single question on agricultural or horticulture. Thus I was placed at a disadvantage.

Hon. Members: Never.

Sir G. Nabaffo: I look after myself in General Elections, as always, but the fact is that the beaming of questions to industrial matters placed me at a disadvantage. Within the terms of this Clause, that might have been interpreted as bias against a particular candidate, because bias against a candidate does not consist of one matter alone. It can consist of the selection of questions. It

can consist of the selection of candidates if, for example, a weak Labour candidate is put up against a very strong Tory candidate. If a feeble and vapid Tory candidate were put against the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), he would savage him. Similarly, if a feeble and vapid Labour candidate were put against me, I would savage him.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Cad!

Sir G. Nabarro: I am not a cad. These are methods of exercising television and broadcasting bias, and any hon. Member who sneers at me or mocks me for saying that has insufficient knowledge. The editing of television or broadcast programmes, the selection of material for them, the selection of candidates for them, are all means—and I make no accusations or insinuations or innuendos—of beaming propaganda against one candidate or the other but are largely unenforceable within the Statute and are unproveable. That is why the hon. Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) was correct in stating that this subsection is non-enforceable and why I am correct in saying that it is unproveable.
I want to give a further example, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale will rise and support me on it, because it is one from his own personal experience as a West country man in origin. In the 1959 General Election I was called upon by my party to take part in a similar party political broadcast. I have quoted an example from the 1966 General Election which involved the Chancellor of the Exchequer; this is an example from the 1959 General Election when the "Any Questions?" programme on the B.B.C. was turned into a party political broadcast and was announced as such.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I thought it was that all the time.

Sir G. Nabarro: I have been privileged on numerous occasions to take part in that programme against the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. I reckon that we are equal weight.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: A bantam.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson)


considers the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale a bantam. I do not. I consider him a he ivy weight. I never under-estimate my opponents. I like participating with the hon. Member because when the B.B.C. put us on together we have a very good time. We are equally matched. That is fair, and it is what the B.B.C. conscientiously tries to do. As the hon. Member for Barons Court observed, the B.B.C. acid the I.T.A. are scrupulous in their observance of the statutory requirements of impartiality in regard to television and broadcasting. There is no greater or better example, no finer epitome of that impartiality, than is manifest by having the hon. Members for Ebbw Vale and Worcestershire, South on the same programme.

Mr. Hooson: The hon. Member mistakes me I did not accuse him of under-estimating his opponent's weight, but rather of over-estimating his own.

Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry, but I have never felt at a disadvantage with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale. He may have felt superiority.

Mr. Michael Foot: Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale) indicated dissent

Sir G. Nabarro: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman indicates dissent.—[Interruption.] All this discourse has arisen from a ribald intervention by the hon. Member for Salford, West.
I want to go back to the General Election of 1959, when the B.B.C. announced, quite properly, that the programme "Any Questions" would be converted into a party political broadcast. The Labour Party nominee on that occasion was the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). The Liberal Party nominee was Mr. Mark Bonham-Carter, then the Member of Parliament for the Torrington Division of Devon, who lost his seat in the election. I was the Tory nominee.
In the course of the programme, because we had had several weeks of drought and the West of England was afflicted severely, a question arose about the responsibility of the Government for water supplies in Devonshire and Cornwall. The constituency most seriously affected was Torrington, where the Liberal candidate was defending his seat. He made a great brouhaha of the incom-

petence of the Government in not supplying water to Devonshire. In fact, it was an act of God, as I exclaimed at the time. It had not rained for weeks. I remember the General Election singularly well, because from beginning to end I drove an open motor car. I had a ruddy tan by the time polling day arrived.
That question might have been interpreted as bias in favour of the Liberal candidate to cause farmers in the Torrington Division to pin the blame for the shortage of water on the inadequacies and deficiencies of a Tory Government—[Interruption.] In fact, the Liberals do not change their spots. We have six Mark Bonham-Carters sitting behind me.
It was an act of God, but a malignant political mind might have said that it was devious management on the part of the B.B.C. to throw bias against one political party, the Tories, in favour of the Liberal Party.
Subsection (2) is nonsense. It should be excluded from the Bill. It is unenforceable. It is superfluous. As they exist, the general statutory requirements, needing impartiality from both the B.B.C. and I.T.V., are adequate for all circumstances and for the protection of all party candidates. Those of us who are long in the tooth and experience——

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Come on. Wrap up.

Sir G. Nabarro: I propose to go on until I have finished. The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) ought to be particularly quiescent.

Mr. Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. The Tories chose culture in preference to agriculture.

Sir G. Nabarro: The hon. Gentleman has not a blade of grass in his constituency and does not know a farm from an oil refinery, but I am glad that he rises to support me. As he rightly says, I have made my point and, though this is not entirely a free vote, I would enjoin my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Liberal Party in this matter. This is largely non-political and, if the hon. Member for Orpington wishes to tell against the Government on this occasion, he may be the first Teller and my political mentor and leader. I shall follow dutifully behind him and support


what I regard as good common sense and opposition to what is a superfluous subsection.

The Attorney-General: It may be convenient for the Committee if I indicate the Government's attitude to this Amendment and to the matters which have been raised in this vigorous discussion.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) has done less than just justice to himself tonight. He has quite unjustly attributed bad motivation to the clause and quite gratuitously tried to drag in an allegation of some so-called vendetta. I am surprised that he should descend to such political vulgarity.—[An Hon. Member: "Disgraceful."] The fact is that Clause 9 as a whole derives from, and is inspired by, Recommendation 35 of Mr. Speaker's Conference. That has been read in ringing tones by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but I remind the Committee of its terms:
Broadcasting should be exempted from the provisions relating to election expenses in Section 63 of the Representation of the People Act, 1949…".
That is achieved in Clause 9(4). That is a very important measure, so far as the broadcasting authorities are concerned. It frees them of major restrictions which have hitherto hampered them from reporting on parliamentary and local elections. Therefore, so far from the Clause being directed against the broadcasting authorities, on the contrary it opens out new avenues of freedom for them to do their job of informing the electorate about the policies and personalities of election campaigns. Subsection (4) relieves the broadcasting authorities of a good deal of worry, because they were not exempted by the 1949 Act in the same way as newspapers and periodicals from consideration of election expenses.
Furthermore, the Government have gone further than Mr. Speaker's Conference in proposing that some candidates should be able to take part in a broadcast about their own constituency even if not all the candidates take part, so long as none of them objects. Those measures of greater freedom from restriction for the broadcasting authorities are welcomed by them, but it is true that they are critical of some of the restric-

tions in the Clause fettering their freedom.
The restrictions arise from the second part of Recommendation 35 of Mr. Speaker's Conference, which is in these terms:
…but a programme covering an election in a particular constituency and including candidates in that constituency should not be broadcast unless all the candidates have agreed to take part personally and are given an equal opportunity to state their views.
Subsection (2) seeks to give legislative form to the principle which is embodied in the recommendation that all the candidates should be given an equal opportunity to state their views.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose——

The Attorney-General: I will give way in a moment. That is the idea behind the subsection. There is nothing sinister about it. It seeks to meet that point of view.

Sir G. Nabarro: Sir G. Nabarro rose——

The Attorney-General: If the hon. Gentleman would bear with me, it may be that I shall say something to his satisfaction before long.

Sir G. Nabarro: I accept what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says with all the authority of a Law Officer. But what is the situation when 100 constituencies are covered by a television broadcast and there are three candidates in each constituency? All the constituencies are affected by what is shown and said, but we cannot have 300 candidates taking part.

The Attorney-General: I do not think that anybody suggests anything of the kind, neither the Bill nor the broadcasting authorities. In considering the necessity of the provisions in subsection (2), I take note of the point that already the broadcasting authorities are required by law to be impartial. That is a point of importance and substance and it has certainly affected my view in looking at this subsection.
11.45 p.m.
Section 3(1)(e) of the Television Act, 1964, requires the Independent Television Authority to secure
that due impartiality is preserved on the part of the persons providing the programmes as


respects matters of political or industrial controversy or relating to current policy. In applying paragraph (e) of this subsection, a series of programmes may be considered as a whole.
The B.B.C. also is obliged by its Charter to observe its impartiality. The safeguards which already exist are sufficient to preserve impartiality between the parties.
The question arises, however, whether these provisions are sufficient to prevent unfairness to an individual candidate in a particular constituency. That is the problem with which subsection (2) seeks to deal. It has been the Government's view that in order to be faithful to the approach of Mr. Speaker's Conference that there should be equal opportunity, if candidates are to be asked to take part in broadcasts they should have some sort of guarantee that if they agree to do so in relation to their own constituency matters rand their own electoral campaign no favouritism should be shown to one of their number in the broadcasts.
That is the ideal that is sought to be achieved by the subsection, and the requirement it imposes is that those in charge of a broadcast shall not arrange things so as to favour any of the candidates. The subsection is not drafted in terms of the length of time allowed to each candidate. It does not require that each shall be asked the same questions. It does not state that all the interviewing must be equally friendly or equally hostile. I cannot conceive of proceedings being brought—certainly brought successfully—save on the rarest of occasions and in regard to the most flagrant breach if subsection (2) became part of the law.
There is no implied criticism of the broadcasting authorities either intended by the provisions of the subsection or hidden within it.

Mr. Orme: On the question of impartiality, cannot the Attorney-General reverse the position in which a candidate can refuse to take part, which is detrimental to the other candidates who wish to participate, so that the electorate can see and hear them? Why should they be prevented from doing this because one candidate censors the right of the others to appear?

The Attorney-General: If a candidate refuses to take part the broadcast cannot take place.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am anxious to discuss this matter, which is now being debated as a result of an intervention by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), which is not in order on this Amendment but would be in order in the debate on the Clause, since it refers to subsection (1), and has nothing to do with subsection (2). If you are going to allow it to be discussed on an Amendment to subsection (2), Mr. Irving, I would wish to intervene on this point.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member is quite correct and I must not submit to the blandishments of my hon. Friend when he seeks to intervene——

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Would my right hon. and learned Friend explain why he wishes to attach this duty to the officers of the Corporation rather than to the Corporation itself? Does he wish to single out in the Clause the actual officers, producers and others, rather than rely on the general provision with regard to the Corporation as a whole?

The Attorney-General: The Corporation itself would be caught by the language of the subsection. But before this matters extends further in debate, I must say that my view is that the necessity for the subsection needs to be reconsidered. Nevertheless, I urge upon the Committee the point that whereas it is, I think, reasonably clear that the requirements imposed upon the broadcasting authorities can be relied upon to preserve overall impartiality between the parties, there is a point of anxiety as to whether that might not be achieved at the risk of injustice to particular candidates in particular constituencies. However, I feel that this matter should be looked at again, and I accordingly give an undertaking to the Committee that that will be done between now and Report.

Mr. Paul Bryan: We are certainly grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his last few sentences. The early part of his speech was little more than a legal tour around Clause 9, it brought us little comfort with regard to subsection (2). I am glad


to hear that he will have another look at the subsection. May I suggest the direction towards which he should look?
I do not wish to raise the temperature of the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), or to descend to vulgarities, but I must say that one is bound to see the shadow of the Prime Minister behind this Clause—[Interruption.]—for factual reasons. Before 1964. the Government depended in general for protection from bias upon the well-known duty laid on the broadcasting organisations in the Charter and the Television Act to maintain impartiality. For particular queries the Government depended on the recognised channels of communication. If the Prime Minister wished to complain, he complained to the Chairman of the Governors or the Director-General. If the Chief Whip wished to complain, he complained to someone at his own level, his opposite number, in either organisation.
But, with the advent of the Labour Government, we had new practices—[An Hon. Member: "Come off it."] The Committee can judge whether these were better practices——

The Attorney-General: On a point of order. I submit that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the Amendment.

The Chairman (Mr. Sydney Irving): I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he is coming to the Amendment.

Mr. Bryan: My speech is about to be very relevant indeed. I will state facts as shortly as possible so as not to raise the temperature. For the first time, we had a Prime Minister dealing with the junior executives of the organisation, as opposed to dealing with those in charge of the organisation. This new attitude is faithfully reflected in the Clause. At the beginning of the Clause——

Mr. Hamling: On a point of order. My hon. Friend was pulled up earlier for mentioning a matter better dealt with on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", when we are supposed to be dealing with the Amendment.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must allow the Chair to listen to the debate and draw its conclusions about order.

Mr. Bryan: I was about to quote the subsection with which the Amendment deals. It starts with the words:
Without prejudice to any general duty of the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority to maintain impartiality…
They do not mean simply "without prejudice to any general duty". It means in addition to that duty. It then imposes other duties on other people. It states that the responsibility for the impartiality still rents with those in command of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., but henceforth it will also rest specifically on the shoulders of directors, producers and others. We have, therefore, a new level of executive with responsibility on their shoulders.
That, however, is not what will happen. If we put the responsibility directly on the shoulders of juniors, as the Government are doing in subsection (2), we are automaticaly removing that responsibility from the shoulders of the seniors. Under present conditions, if the Director General of the B.B.C. is watching a programme and sees one of his interviewers behaving in a biased fashion, he feels, "I am responsible. I must take action. I have this duty to perform." Under the subsection, however, he could see the same programme and say, "We will see whether this man is sued or not." If the interviewer is not sued, the Director General can feel that perhaps it was not so bad after all. Therefore, not only is his judgment coloured at that point, but it is coloured on future occasions.
The most important point of all is the shifting of responsibility which we see in subsection (2). I dislike the subsection for that reason. I prefer to leave the important responsibility on the shoulders of the heads of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. and not on those of the junior employees.
I confirm the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) that it is impossible to make the subjection effective. The duty, as now, of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., under the Charter and the Act, is a possibility, because they are enjoined to maintain impartiality over a series of programmes over a period. One can never obtain impartiality on each individual programme. That is what subsection (2) is trying to do. For all these reasons, I am glad to hear that the Attorney-General is having second thoughts about it.

Mr. David Steel: I wish briefly to put one point to the Attorney-General since he was kind enough to say that he wants to reconsider the subsection. In so doing I ought, I suppose, to declare a passing interest in that for a short time before coming to the House of Commons I was a television interviewer, and in the event of any aberration of judgment on the part of the electorate of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles it is conceivable that I might at some future occasion also be involved on the other side of the fence.

Mr. Lubbock: Never.

Mr. Steel: I am certain that my hon. Friend is right, but I have to consider these possibilities.
Since becoming a Member of the House I have continued to participate professionally on the other side of television interviewing in programmes which do not involve politics. I should like to relate to the Attorney-General an experience which is relevant. I remember taking part in a programme and waiting at one end of the studio to conduct the interview while an interview was going on for another part of the programme at the other end of the studio.
During that other interview, it became clear that the person being interviewed was not doing justice to his case, nor was he contributing much to television entertainment or enlightenment. My colleague the other interviewer therefore cut short the interview contrary to the producer's prior instructions, and switched immediately to my interview. Therefore, his interview was one minute shorter and mine was one minute longer than had been arranged, but it was the kind of programme in which that did not matter.
Suppose, however, that it had happened, as it might well have done, in a television production of an election programme. It might be said under the Clause as drafted that the interviewer had favoured one candidate by giving him longer screen time, when intentionally he was trying to protect the interests of the programme by cutting short one of the interviews.
12 p.m.
I will give another example, this time outside television. When I was fighting

the by-election in Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles a number of politicians suddenly took a great interest in the constituency and arrived to participate in the respective campaigns. Some of my Liberal hon. Friends were among them. They will not take it unkindly when I tell them that none of them made as substantial a contribution to my campaign as did the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) who came to speak ostensibly for my opponent.
If the various speeches made on that occasion from platforms had been made on a television programme and if the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, and I had been participating in a programme not about, for example, floods in Devonshire but about a Border matter—and if he had been supplied with inaccurate statistics by the Conservative Central Office—great credit would have accrued to me through no effort of mine or my colleagues but because of the extraordinary observations of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. In that event the television programme would have favoured me, but it would have been no fault of the managers of the programme, as a result of no endeavour on my part but entirely as a result of the hon. Gentleman's performance. If the Attorney-General were introducing in the Bill a suggestion that there should be legislation to make it an offence to rig a programme in favour of a candidate, that would be correct and would have my support. But that is not what the Clause says. It simply says that
…any person who…favours any of the candidates…shall be guilty of an illegal practice.
The phrase "whether or not intended" does not appear. I hope that, in reconsidering the drafting of the Clause, the Attorney-General will remember that such a penalty should apply only where somebody has wilfully distorted a programme.

The Attorney-General: I assure the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that I will give attention, in my reconsideration of the drafting of the Clause, to the points he made. He accepts that there is the problem of avoiding unfair treatment being given to a candidate who might—to use the vivid expression of the hon. Member


for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—be massacred by some selective treatment of a broadcast of the kind we are discussing.

Sir G. Nabarro: While rejecting absolutely the interpretation put on my visit to the Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by-election on 9th March, 1965—when I spoke in the Borough of Innerleithen and contributed to the Tory vote on that occasion—I would be ungenerous indeed if I did not warmly thank the Attorney-General for his characteristically kind, objective and constructive interpretation of the few party political comments I addressed to him. I shall await, pregnant, the further stages of the Bill to see his promises translated into statutory effect.

Mr. Lubbock: Anybody would think that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) had tabled the Amendment. Like my Liberal colleagues, I again thank him for the support which he gave to my party at the Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles by-election.
Speeches from both sides of the Committee have pointed out the defects in the drafting of the Clause. The Attorney-General has been generous in recognising that the Government have made a mistake and, following his assurance that he will look into the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Bryan: I ask one question about the opening passages of the Clause. Will the Attorney-General explain why the operative time is the latest time for delivery of nomination papers? For most of us who fight elections the key moment is when we are adopted as candidates. From that moment the campaign is on and one would have thought that television programmes would operate from then. It would appear that it is impossible to have any television programme until about 10 days before polling day, yet most campaigns go on for about three weeks before that day.

Mr. David Steel: I am sorry to speak again so soon, but I wish to pursue the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). The wording of

Clause 9(1)(b) refers to constituency broadcasts not taking place when any particular candidate has declined to appear and to give consent to the programme going ahead. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the law at present is somewhat vague on this subject. A practice has developed whereby if a candidate decides not to take part in a programme, either that programme cannot take place or the programme authorities cover themselves by putting a photograph of that candidate on the screen and reading parts of his election address.
This has been the case when the candidate is not a member of one of the three parties and the likelihood of prosecution has been remote. I remember a B.B.C. programme where the three party candidates appeared and the fourth candidate, standing as an independent, did not appear, but was merely filmed riding a motor scooter through the constituency. I do not know whether the B.B.C. invited him to appear.
Apparently the Government have decided to codify the position and to make what is at present vague absolutely watertight. I have no objection to that, but I think they have made it watertight in the wrong direction. A candidate in a constituency should not be forced to appear on television if he does not wish to do so, but it is quite wrong that any candidate, a party candidate, an independent or someone seeking to get out of the Armed Forces, should by virtue of not giving consent to a programme actually veto a broadcast of constituency affairs. I hope that the Attorney-General, following his excellent precedent of a few moments ago will agree that this is a matter which should be examined more carefully. I should like to pursue it on Report if he does not feel that he has sufficient evidence to examine it now.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I support the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) because I too came to this House as the result of a by-election and exactly the same happened to me as he has described. Before this debate, I was talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who had the same experience.
If subsection (1)(b) were rigidly interpreted, it would preclude many television broadcasts in by-elections. Many friends in television have told me that if a candidate refuses to appear on a programme it is the custom to show a photograph of him and to read from his election material for a corresponding time to that given to each other candidate. As a result of similar experience to that of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles and conversations with my hon. Friends, I urge that this subsection should be withdrawn. If it is rigidly interpreted it will preclude by-election coverage on television.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) asked for an explanation as to the selection in subsection (1)(b) of the latest time for the delivery of nomination papers. That will be the point of time at which the candidates will have been identified. As the provisions in paragraph (b) involve the participation of the candidates or their consent to the broadcast taking place without participation, that is the moment of time which is effective.
I appreciate that it is a debatable point that the provisions of the Clause permit a veto for the single candidate. I can imagine situations where a proposed broadcast might be highly inconvenient. It might come at a moment which was entirely inconvenient for an individual candidate, and he might well feel entitled to object to the proposed broadcast taking place. Steps must be taken as best we can to preserve the rights and opportunities of each individual candidate in an election campaign. It is thought that the proposal in the Clause, which goes further than was suggested by Mr. Speaker's Conference, achieves about the right balance.
Initially, the proposal of Mr. Speaker's Conference was that a broadcast should not take place unless all the candidates agreed to take part personally. At least the language of the Clause extends the possibility of a broadcast taking place by removing the requirement that all must agree to take part personally and leaving room for the situation in which a single candidate might say, "You can carry on with the broadcast. I do not want to. The best of luck". On the whole, the Clause achieves a fair balance to ensure

the protection of each individual candidate and equal opportunity for him.

Mr. David Steel: I am very unhappy with that reply, and it would be wrong of me not to say so. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation is unconvincing. We are making a fundamental change in the law. I do not think this fact has been fully appreciated. The Attorney-General rightly says that a programme might be arranged which did not suit the convenience of a candidate and his position must be protected. I agree. Under existing legislation, the practice has grown up—I have had experience of this—that when these programmes are arranged every effort is made to ensure that they suit the convenience of all the candidates. If a candidate objects that he cannot accept a suggested time, other times are negotiated and agreed. Eventually, in practice each candidate is persuaded to say whether in principle he agree to take part.
At present, if a programme went ahead with candidates A and B but not candidate C, simply because it was inconvenient for candidate C, and if it were shown that the broadcasting authority arranging the programme had not adequately taken into account the inconvenience to candidate C, the broadcasting authority would be guilty of an offence.
I am very concerned that this change is being made without adequate discussion. If Mr. Speaker's Conference meant literally what it said, I disagree with it, and I do not find it much cheer that the Attorney-General should think that he is moving in a somewhat more liberal direction. I am comparing what we are being asked to approve with the present state of the law. I think that that is the right comparison, and I am very unhappy about the change. If the Attorney-General maintains that it is the right change, I hope that he will at least give further thought to the matter as it has been raised by one or two hon. Members.

12.15 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I intended to give that assurance at any rate, but I cannot give any undertaking that there will be an Amendment. I will gladly look at it in the light of what has been said.

Mr. Mendelson: I have only just decided briefly to intervene in the debate. I have sat through all the other debates


today without intervening, but I do so now because I do not want the record to show that all hon. Members who spoke on the Clause attacked it.
The conclusion of Mr. Speaker's Conference was, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) has quoted. I support that conclusion, as do many other hon. Members. If the Attorney-General is moving slightly away from that recommendation, I am prepared to accept it, but it should be on the record why the conference reached that conclusion and why I, for one, do not accept the account which has been given.
An important principle is involved. Elections are a matter in the first place for the electorate and for candidates, and that must not be lost sight of. I agree with what has been said about the growing importance of broadcasting and television, but because their importance is growing does not mean that the essential purposes of an election, the decision of the electorate about how the House of Commons is to be composed and what party is to be elected, can be overlooked or become less important. To put it rather more crudely, we cannot hand over the essential purpose of an election to the reporting of an election, and many things have happened in election campaigns which give warning about that.
It was that kind of reasoning which led Mr. Speaker's Conference to its conclusion. The invention of a new instrument of reporting, the introduction of a machine, however useful, into our electoral processes, must not be allowed to begin to dictate changes in those processes themselves, and that is what is involved. I am not putting this in any partisan spirit. This is a matter of opinion and of judgment, but it is of fundamental importance.
I have taken part in four elections, including all of those since television has played a part. It is not as simple as has been represented. I have no personal bias in this matter, for my attitude is simple: whenever a television company asks me to take part in a broadcast, I automatically agree. But that does not give me the right to judge on behalf of all actual or potential candidates who may take part in a future election.
It is not so easy to get the time and date of a broadcast changed. What normally happens, in my experience, is that a candidate is campaigning in his constituency and finds on getting back to his headquarters that there is a scribbled message asking, "Will you please appear for three minutes on television in Manchester?" For me as for other candidates, this may mean three or four hours' travel, or, if the traffic is bad, five hours. The candidate may well have contracted three or four different engagements that afternoon, and one of them might be a big meeting called by the United Nations Association, for instance, at which all the candidates are supposed to appear. Perhaps there is a meeting of old age pensioners, or a meeting with a trade association, or an open air meeting.
This Committee has a duty to safeguard the position of future candidates. If a candidate in such a situation says, "I cannot possibly take part", it should be left to him whether he wants the broadcast to preceed at that time—[Hon. Members: "Why?"]—because it would put him at a serious disadvantage compared with other candidates if they had no engagements that afternoon and he had three or four important ones.
If he has that power in the Clause, it would be a powerful incentive for him to get the television authorities or television company to listen to him. He might say, "I am prepared to take part in principle, but that afternoon or evening is impossible for me, although it is easy for the others and it is unfair to impose it on me and I therefore say 'No' to this broadcast, but I am open to suggestions about others". Because that is the position, the Government should stick to this Clause.

Mr. David Steel: If the hon. Member has had this experience, surely he agrees with me that, in the situation described, the broadcasting authorities do not arrange it so that it is inconvenient for one candidate, if he has agreed in principle. I can think of no case where that could happen under existing law.

Mr. Mendelson: In the past, the practice which this Clause would change, has been different. The practice, with the major party candidates, has been that if a single candidate said "No", the broadcast could not take place; not that they


would try to find another time. This has been the case in by-elections and General Elections. The Government are moving slightly ahead of that. The hon. Member is urging a different and much more radical change which would not provide the safeguard. If he was trying to argue that the position should remain as at present, I would go with him. That is another story.
Does he argue that it should remain the privilege of one candidate to make a broadcast possible? Is that his case? I did not understand it to be so. I think he was urging that the Government should move further from the present position. If the Government are prepared to accept the recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference to maintain the present position, I will accept that. But if it is urged that they should move further so that individual candidates would not be safeguarded——

Mr. David Steel: Before the hon. Member concludes his speech, can we clear this up? I am saying that the present position should be maintained in the absence of any improvement, but that the Government are creating a position where Screaming Lord Sutch could stand in a by-election which was highly marginal and of national interest as well as constituency interest, and under this Clause, Screaming Lord Sutch, who has been a candidate more than once, could say: "I do not agree to take part in a broadcast with these other three politicians and I do not give my consent". Therefore, it is not the present position. At present the broadcasting authorities would say, "We do not think your lack of desire of any great importance and we consider that it is in accordance with our duty of impartiality to go ahead and have the programme of discussion and show your photograph and say why you are standing". That would he impossible under this and that is why I am against it.

Mr. Mendelson: That is a very useful explanation. If the hon. Gentleman is now urging that we should leave things as they are, which is my original position, I should accept that. If the Government were persuaded to return to it, I should be very happy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: At this sedate but amiable moment, I beg to move,
That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

PUBLIC BODIES (UNITED STATES MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

12.25 a.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: It is a very pleasant surprise to see the right hon. Lady the Paymaster-General on the Front Bench opposite to answer this debate. I look forward to hearing what she has to say about the important subject of the employment of American management consultants by Government Departments and nationalised industries.
I should like to begin by saying that I am not a chauvinist and do not insist that Government Departments and nationalised industries should always employ British consultants under every possible set of circumstances. If there is fair and open competition between the Americans and British firms, and the Americans can definitely show that they have more to offer, Government Departments are justified in employing them in preference to our own nationals. What I object to, and shall illustrate has happened in a number of instances, is those public bodies and Government Departments going to American consultants without giving British firms the opportunity to show what they can do, or even holding any discussions with them before the appointment is made.
I should like to make one other general point before coming to the detail. I speak from a certain amount of knowledge, because I was a consultant for five years some time before I came to the House. When one employs a consultant one does not only look at the reputation of the firm concerned but the individuals who will be appointed to carry out the assignment. One cannot tell who those individuals will be unless one enters into discussions with the consultants who might be appointed. If one sticks to one


potential consultant one never knows what the other firms might have to offer. It is important to make that point clear at the beginning.
The decision on which my speech will largely be based, that of the Bank of England to employ American management consultants, is the most recent of a number of similar instances where public bodies have given assignments to American consultants.
It appears to those involved in the profession and to many of their clients that the Bank of England's decision stems from a serious lack of faith in British professional skills and ability by some of the most influential people in our society. That impression has been given, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will do what she can to dispel it tonight.
As far as I am aware, there were no discussions between the Bank of England and British consultants who might have been able to take on this assignment if asked. Yet it is a fact that British firms in the management consultancy profession have carried out major assignments in the field of top management structure and organisation for some of the largest industrial, commercial and governmental bodies in many countries all over the world, and have done an extremely good job in competition with American consultants overseas.
I shall mention one case later where a client of a British firm has asked, "Why should we employ you? We have given you the assignment now, but we have obviously made a mistake because the greatest bank in your country, the Bank of England, has decided to employ the Americans, and it must have chosen the best." That is the sort of impression which has been created abroad by the decision.
The Bank of England says that it carefully considered the potential of British consultants. But what does that amount to? Did it simply get in touch with Government Departments and corporations which had used McKinsey in this country and overseas, including the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank, which could hardly have been expected to recommend the appointment of British consultants, or did it extend its inquiries more widely to include other major governmental and

industrial users of British consulting services which might have a different opinion? One rather suspects the former. One would like to know how many meetings were held by the Bank of England to discuss the merits of various firms. I wonder whether the decision was not based purely on the result of the workings of the "old boy network", the Governor of the Bank of England going round to other people who had employed McKinsey asking what they thought and when told "It is a good firm. It has done a good assignment for us." taking that as good enough, so that he did not go through the list of British consultants which might have done the assignment.
Another point of tremendous importance is the take-over of Inbucon by the American firm, the Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation. This is important in the context of these discussions, because if it goes through—and the closing date for the offer was this afternoon—there will be one fewer British consultant from which to choose. It would mean that the Americans had taken over the biggest British management consultant which could offer these services to Government Departments and nationalised bodies. I would deplore that. I think that those who are working in this organisation would leave in very large numbers. Moreover, it would mean not only that Leasco would have a foot in the British consultancy world, but that indirectly it would have access to the files of many of our top industrial enterprises which it could use for selling American computers, apart from the introduction of American methods into the management consultancy professsion. I mention that in passing because it illustrates another potential danger to which the Government should pay attention.
I turn to the essence of my complaint. I have no objection in principle to the employment of overseas consultants by the Government and public bodies, but what is manifest not only in the case of the Bank of England but in the other assignments given to the Americans, such as the G.P.O. and the B.B.C., is the failure to give British firms an equal opportunity to submit proposals and say what they can do. Apart from the bodies that I have mentioned, there is the lesser


known case of the Gas Council, into which I will not go in detail because I think the right hon. Lady will already be aware of it, but this is yet another example of a public body which has employed American consultants. A further one, which was almost a case of an American getting the assignment, was the Metropolitan Police, but I am glad to say that in that case in fair and open competition a British consultant got the order.
What is the damage that the action by the Bank of England has done to British consulting practice at home and overseas? I used rather strong language in my Question to the Prime Minister the other day, with careful consideration to the words that I chose. The overseas fee income of Management Consultants' Association firms in 1967 was no less than £3 million, which was 20 per cent. of their total turnover, and £¾ million of this was earned on assignments of the type now being undertaken by McKinsey in the field of top level reorganisation. It is ironic to see that British firms belonging to the M.C.A. have been doing McKinsey-type assignments for the Swiss Post Office and the New Zealand Broadcasting Commission at the same time as McKinsey has been chosen for their United Kingdom counterparts.
The effect on the clients and potential clients, overseas particularly, of the continued and apparently automatic preference of Government and public bodies for these foreign consulting firms cannot be exaggerated. I quote from the European director of one of our biggest firms of management consultants who is based on Paris and has a major practice in this type of work. He says
I hope no one underestimates the damage that the Bank of England announcement has done to the reputation of British consulting firms trying to expand in Europe.
I do not think Sir Leslie O'Brien has appreciated this argument even yet.
These are some of the points which I think the right hon. Lady ought to take into account. I hope she will not say that the decision by the Bank of England was purely a matter for the Bank, because as she knows, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has in the last resort the power to give directions to the Bank.
I asked him to exercise them the other day. Probably one would not wish to

go as far as that, but it was a matter of getting the Question on the Order Paper so as to get public discussion of it.
This matter has gone so far that the Government cannot just sit back and say that these are matters of day-to-day management for the bodies concerned. The damage done to British consultants is so great that the Government must intervene.

Mr. John Smith: I am pleased to be able to follow the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock), if only briefly, because I and all of us owe a great debt to his father. I know it is not very fashionable nowadays to have a father, and most of us try to keep it dark but I hope the hon. Member will not mind my alluding to this gentleman, because his father founded the first firm of British management consultants.
Many years ago I asked if I might have some time off from my own work in order to go to work briefly with that firm and do a course with them. As a result, I have ever since been firmly converted to the merits of management consultancy, and very fundamental are the services which management consultants have rendered to the various companies with which I have been associated since.
I am bound to say that on some occasions we have called in British firms, and on other occasions American firms. There is an advantage sometimes in having United States consultants, and that is the advantage of the shock which it delivers to public opinion.
For example, some of us think that management consultants might usefully be employed in this building. How, for example, can we urge the employment of management consultants in Government Departments and other State activities when we do not have them here in a place which may be thought by some to be one of the more antiquated spots in the kingdom? In our case here, the fact that the consultants were American would certainly increase the impact of calling them in.
I was interested by the hon. Member's reference to European firms calling in English consultants, while we call in Americans. I think sometimes there is an advantage in that, very much the


same as the advantage of calling in outside consultants and not using one's own internal people.
But whether consultants are to be American or British is not nearly so important as that Government Departments and State bodies should go to consultants of some sort. The Government still seem to have a rather old-fashioned attitude to consultants. I have constantly asked, for example, that they should be appointed for the Customs and Excise Department, but without success. The Government's attitude is a little like that of the public attitude to psychiatrists in the 1920's—that it is not quite the thing, not quite respectable, to consult them. But far from a sign of weakness, to go to a consultant is a sign of a progressive outlook. Furthermore, to go once is not enough. Departments should go regularly, like servicing a motor car.
Moreover, they should go to outside consultants. There were some very interesting strictures on the subject of internal consultants in the Fulton Report which I feel did not perhaps have the publicity they might have had.
Therefore, while supporting the hon. Gentleman, I feel that although the nationality of the consultants is important, it is equally important that the Government should hoist in the idea that Government Departments and State bodies should go regularly to outside consultants of some sort.

12.40 a.m.

The Paymaster-General (Mrs. Judith Hart): I wish that we were debating the desirability of employing an American consultancy firm to advise on our conditions of work in the House of Commons, but I fear that this is not so, and if it were it would be beyond my responsibility.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) for raising this very important subject. No one is more aware than the Government of the striking progress management consultancy in this country has made in recent years, and rightly so. Skilled and specialised work of this kind makes a valuable contribution to the achievement of greater management effectiveness and industrial efficiency and, therefore, to the

higher productivity we all want and need in order to be a more competitive industrial nation.
Over the last five years, the annual growth in fee income has averaged about 12½ per cent. It is fair to say—and this is the answer to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith)—that the Government have played a full part in this development. Apart from the use of consultants for Government Departments, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has introduced in Glasgow and Bristol a grant-aided pilot scheme for assisting small firms to employ consultants—small firms which might not, if left to themselves, be able to afford to do so. This has met with an encouraging response. The results are being considered with a view to possible extension nationally, although it will be some time before it could come into effect.
We are particularly concerned tonight with the employment of American management consultants by Government Departments and public-owned enterprises. The Civil Service Department—before that, the Treasury—co-ordinates the use of management consultants by Departments. Its role is not to pre-empt Departmental decisions on the need to employ consultants or on the final choice of a particular consultant, but to provide central advice about consultancy firms and on the procedures which should be followed in commissioning and selecting consultants and liaison with them during the course of assignments. It also provides a number of selection boards.
In addition, financial approval for the approval of consultants has to be given by the Civil Service Department or, in certain circumstances, by the Treasury. This is desirable not only in order to ensure that the cost is justified by savings or improvements in efficiency expected to result, but also to provide the opportunity to consider whether central management services resources could more appropriately be offered to the Department concerned. Unless there are exceptional reasons for an alternative procedure, the normal arrangements are to invite about three selected consultancy firms for initial interview. These often lead to their carrying out a preliminary survey without charge before they put forward proposals for carrying


out the assignment and indicate the cost involved.
Normally, an approach would be confined to a single consultancy firm only where the assignment was in the nature of a follow-up to previous work undertaken by that firm in an area of activity with which it was particularly conversant or where specialist services were required which a single firm was best qualified to give.
But the general procedure is to invite three selected firms for interview. The Civil Service Department maintains an index of consultancy firms and of the assignments undertaken in Departments. In advising Departments about the use of consultants for particular assignments, the Civil Service Department gives information on those it thinks suitable to undertake the task. In doing so, consideration is given to the range of services offered and the particular experience of the firms concerned.
It is important to bear in mind the wide range of consultancy services available to the Government from internal resources. It does not follow from that that external consultants do not have a valuable part to play in supplementing the internal ones. It is our view that. in many cases, they can make a special contribution which cannot be made by internal resources alone.
In this careful selection procedure, Departments are not told to exclude American firms from consideration. and I believe that it would be wrong to introduce an outright ban of that kind. The choice of consultant should rest mainly upon suitability for a given task not only of the consultancy firm but also of the individuals engaged on the assignment. Some British firms of management consultants, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have extensive overseas organisations. In 1967, about a fifth of the fee income of member firms of the Management Consultants' Association came from overseas business. A policy by Government Departments here of using only British firms might have unfortunate repercussions abroad. It is a fact, however, that British firms have certain built-in advantages. In general, they have much more experience of operating in this country, their fees are lower than those of the American companies operating

here, and their degree of skill is certainly as high. Those are factors which are taken into account in making a selection.
What are the results of this policy? The records of the Civil Service Department show that Government Departments, excluding the Post Office, have engaged management consultants for some 160 assignments over the past 3½ years, of which just over half involved work within the Departments themselves. I think that that is the answer to the anxiety expressed by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster, who is anxious that the Government should appreciate the need to use consultancy services. The hon. Member for Orpington will be interested to know that, of those 160 assignments, American firms have been used for only seven. I think that that will be a sufficient indication for him of the degree of confidence which the Civil Service Department has in the capacity and skill of British consultancy firms.
The arrangements which I have outlined apply only to the selection and use of management consultants by Government Departments. Decisions by publicly-owned enterprises to use consultants are matters for the management of the enterprise concerned, and I deal now with the question of the Bank of England. There are several sources of advice, including the joint B.I.M./C.B.I. advisory service, available to commerce and industry generally. While the Civil Service Department would give what advice it could if approached by a public corporation, its information is angled to suitability of consultants for work in the Civil Service.
The tenor of what the hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his remarks was to suggest that the Government should set aside the principle of accountable management and direct publicly-owned enterprises on how they should set about selecting consultants. The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should have given a direction. To begin with, it is doubtful whether the Government have the right to do so. Taking the example of the Bank of England, its right to conduct its domestic affairs derives from the Bank of England Act and the Bank of England Charter, 1946, which provides:
The Court of Directors may and shall…generally in all matters do whatsoever they


may judge necessary for the well ordering and managing of the Bank of England and the affairs thereof.
While the Treasury has power to make directions to the Bank, it is the clear intention of the Act that such directions should be used only for matters of major public importance. In fact, no directions have been made so far, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that the matter under discussion, given that in no circumstances since the passing of the Act have directions been issued to the Bank of England, this could hardly be held to be one of such public importance that it should be the first example.

Mr. Lubbock: The right hon. Lady is implying that the power has lapsed because it has not been used since it was taken by the Government in the 1946 Act. But the very least that she could do would be to draw the attention of Sir Leslie O'Brien to the admirable methods for the selection of consultants adopted by Government Departments. If in all cases three different firms were invited to carry out preliminary assignments, I would be satisfied.

Mrs. Hart: I am sure that what is said in the House this evening will be read with interest by a number of people, possibly including Sir Leslie O'Brien.
I should like to add something to the legal position. The legal position is one thing. but there are other aspects to it. It would be wholly inconsistent with the Government's relationship with publicly-owned enterprises to intervene in decisions of this character which are intrinsic to the efficient operation of the enterprise concerned. Public corporations and nationalised industries have, for the most part, acquired a good deal of experience of using British firms of consultants. The Bank of England, for example, has used British consultants on more than one occasion on particular aspects of its work. So it could not be said that it had any resistance to the employment of British firms of consultants. It clearly made its latest selection in the light of this experience as well as its knowledge of the services available and the need for confidentiality.
I referred earlier to the very remarkable progress which has been made by management consultancy in this country.

This has been matched by increasing professionalism among consultancy firms. It has been the aim of most of the leading figures in management consultancy that their calling should be accepted as a profession alongside the traditional professions like law and accountancy. This is clearly right, and I do not hesitate to say so. What I do not quite understand is how this acceptance of the professionalism of consultancy, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees, can be reconciled with the point of view that he has put tonight; in other words, his disapproval of the decision of the Bank of England to employ McKinsey and Co. I can well understand that this was a disappointment to United Kingdom firms of consultants, but I hope that they will not take it as in any way a criticism of the level of their own performance. What I have said about the use by the Civil Service of British firms, and the figures that I have given, should be an indication of the confidence that is felt in them. However, McKinsey has practised here for some years now and, through its specialisation in top management problems and the experience and reputation that it has gained, it has been engaged by a number of our leading firms for top organisational and management assignments. It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that the leaders of some of our major public corporations should wish to employ it for similar work. I do not think that that need necessarily be regarded as being in any way a reflection on British consultancy firms.
After the Bank's decision to employ McKinsey, the Governor of the Bank met the Chairman of the Management Consultants' Association and the President of the Institute of Management Consultants and expressed the Bank's general confidence in British management consultants. That confidence is certainly shared by the Civil Service Department. I think that the British profession of management consultancy can look forward to an extremely bright future in which it can feel that it has the confidence of those in this country who are concerned with the profession of management consultants.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to One o'clock.